The truth about solar panels - do the pros outweigh the cons?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2020
- The truth about solar panels - do the pros outweigh the cons? Head to www.squarespace.com/mattferrell to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code MATTFERRELL. Solar power has seen record growth over the past decade, created an incredible number of new jobs, and is one of the most affordable forms of generating energy. But with all of those panels popping up across rooftops and open areas, what happens when it comes time to replace them? And do the environmental impacts of manufacturing solar panels outweigh the benefits?
▻ Watch The truth about nuclear fusion power - new breakthroughs - • The truth about nuclea...
Follow-up podcast:
Video version - / @stilltbd
Audio version - bit.ly/stilltbdfm
▻ Full script and citations: undecidedmf.com/episodes/the-...
--------------------
▶ ▶ ▶ ADDITIONAL INFO ◀ ◀ ◀
▻ Support us on Patreon!
/ mattferrell
▻ Check out my podcast - Still To Be Determined:
bit.ly/stilltbdfm
▻ Tesla and smart home gear I really like:
kit.co/undecidedmf
▻ Undecided Amazon store front:
bit.ly/UndecidedAmazon
▻ Great Tesla Accessories
From Abstract Ocean - 15% Discount - Code: "Undecided"
bit.ly/UndecidedAO
▻ Jeda Wireless phone charger:
bit.ly/UndecidedJeda
▻ Get 1,000 miles of free supercharging with a new Tesla:
ts.la/matthew84515
PLEASE NOTE: For the Abstract Ocean discount you may have to click on the "cart" button, then "view bag" to enter the coupon code manually. Be sure to enter "undecided" there if you don't see the discount automatically applied.
All Amazon links are part of their affiliate program.
Thanks so much for your support!
--------------------
▶ ▶ ▶ GET IN TOUCH ◀ ◀ ◀
▻ X
X.com/mattferrell
▻ Instagram
/ mattferrell
▻ Facebook
/ undecidedmf
▻ Website
undecidedmf.com
--------------------
▻ Audio file(s) provided by Epidemic Sound
bit.ly/UndecidedEpidemic
#renewableenergy #solarpanels #truthabout #undecidedwithmattferrell - Наука та технологія
What's your take on solar? If you liked this video, be sure to check out "The truth about wind turbines - how bad are they?" ua-cam.com/video/WsswrLKlinU/v-deo.html
And be sure to check out my podcast where my brother I talk through some of your feedback! Still To Be Determined: stilltbd.fm/
I wonder about the impact of the inverter and batteries on the same perspectives - impact of production, recycling... There is home use and then commercial systems and different types of batteries, but this would be quite interesting.
Missing the essential: energy storage. Very wrong to compare Gaz/Coal/Nuclear and Solar Panels. Controllable energy is totally different than Intermittent energy. Look blackout in California.
I was part of the PV Cycle original team back in 2007. Basically, the value of the recycled materials on the market, minus the recycling process cost, pays for the physical dismantling and logistics of taking the modules to the recycling plants. There may be a small minus or plus at the end depending on module type and other details.
Kudos Matt, great video. I agree with you, there's no doubt that solar is a better alternative to fossil fuels for electricity generation. But I live in Washington state where most of our electricity comes from hydro. I suspect that many of my well intentioned neighbors installing solar don't realize this. Not many people I've talked to understand things like LCA. Not that hydro doesn't have an environmental impact, it does. But I think that the case for the environmental benefits of solar over hydro is clearly not as strong as the case for solar over fossil fuels. So Matt, I'm curious what you think. Is installing residential solar the right thing to do for the environment when your local utilities are already largely based off of renewable energy sources? Cheers!
Dislike for not including other renewables and nuclear in to comparison. Everybody knows solar is better than coal or gas.
P.S.: One more failure of this video: you didn't take intermittency and energy storage into account.
This panel can put out close to 100 watts ua-cam.com/users/postUgkxOqI2yqX0XVrhR2BMJciTWrHJpG8FhJyg when positioned in the appropriate southernly direction, tilted to the optimal angle for your latitude/date, and connected to a higher capacity device than a 500. The built in kickstand angle is a fixed at 50 degrees. Up to 20% more power can be output by selecting the actual date and latitude optimal angle.The 500 will only input 3.5A maximum at 18 volts for 63 watts. Some of the excess power from the panel can be fed into a USB battery bank, charged directly from the panel while also charging a 500. This will allow you to harvest as much as 63 + 15 = 78 watts.If this panel is used to charge a larger device, such as the power station, then its full output potential can be realized.
Almost everyone agrees the common enemy is fossil fuels, but solar (and wind) are still useless without storage. IMO, when discussing the pros and cons of solar panels, the plan for overnight storage needs to be discussed. Furthermore, as more of our transportation fleet converts to electric over the next 20 years, overall demand for electrical energy is going to increase, but so will available storage via these vehicles.
A video that discusses overnight storage, transportation fleet conversion to electric and how nuclear can have a positive part to play in reversing carbon emissions is still desired. IMO
Elon has an app for that. Appliance.
There are lots of videos on the subject.
Personally I did a cost analysis with weather data in my local area and the optimal strategy with commercially available parts is to install an excess amount of panels (so that you can meet your power needs on cloudy days in the winter) and then have a battery bank lasting around 3 days. When simulating this setup on wether data over the past 3 years where I live (Northern Europe) there were no power outages.
So basically energy storage problem is kinda overrated, overnight storage can be provided by batteries without costing a fortune and dips in the weather can be solved by just using more panels (since they still work on cloudy days, theh just produce less).
There are obviously some locations where this strategy might not work, but for most places it would work. You can also use the excess power generated to powercarbon capture devices, even if they are very inefficient you would still have a lot of excess power to waste, so why not put it to use instead of just throwing it away.
The real problem is that people are waiting for cheaper energy storage instead, which makes sense from an economic standpoint since storage prices are dropping quite a lot so it makes more sense to wait for them to settle and then you know what ratio of pannels to betteries is optimal. Hopefully we can get good hydrogen storage, which could theoretically drop prices down to around 0.1 dollar/kWh instead of the 100 dollar/kwh we have now. But building cheap (and safe) hydrogen storage tanks is easier said that done.
Not just an OPINION my friend, a fact. Storage and the extremely toxic chemicals that must be (eventually) recycled or trashed not to mention mined in the first place are the MUCH bigger problem.
Batteries: this is what is the bottle neck, and they have not come very far in terms of energy density for the time that they have been around!
James Shriver I’d say a 10 fold increase at an exponential rate is a pretty big increase. For grid storage though the energy density is not of interest, it’s the cost per energy, which has and is still dropping. The recycling is still an issue, but it is also separate from the carbon emission and a lot of development is being done in that area.
@@jamesshriver4822 Solid state battery’s look very promising. I think there is still hope.
The University Of Sheffield in the UK has solar panels over 40 years old, they are still producing over 70% of their rated power. These panels were made badly compared to modern panels, so I’d say we’re looking at 40 years out of panels if you don’t mind a drop off in power. Most modern panels will stop degrading at around 80%.
Another thing to keep in mind is that even today, people will buy brand new solar panels with absolute garbage efficiency, like in the realm of 8-12%. If you can get a 30 year old quality panel that makes 60% of it's original higher efficiency, you're looking at something that will be way cheaper to make an installation with than some crappy junk you'd find on the internet.
On the other hand, there _are_ some modern panels that are built really cheaply and badly. I have seen some systems break down in as short as 5 years. The industry is still in the relatively early stages where a lot of garbage comes out, but I expect it to get a lot better over time.
@@Turksarama True, I bought some good ones, the panel price was 50% more than some of the other brands, but they started with 22% efficiency (specified) and don't seem to be degrading much over the 8 years that I have had them.
Remove the tax credit. I'm tired of buying expensive cars and solar panels for rich people.
@@goofyfoot2001 Wait until you see how much we give to the coal miners and oil compnaies too. Us working grunts pay for everything.
I feel this analysis should also include some form of storage. Solar without storage is not the complete picture.
Solar shills always conveniently leave out that part of the equation. Matt is pretty darn decided in that regard.
The reduction in degradation of the roof shingles that the panels cover is also remarkable. The shingles and roof fittings under the panels I have still look almost brand new.
Do they charge you more in taxes?
Wtf as that got to do with anything 😂😂😂😂
That's great to hear about the reduction in degradation of the roof shingles! In terms of outdoor gear and home backup power products, I highly recommend the Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series. With its massive capacity, powerful output, and waterproof technology, it's a reliable choice for outdoor enthusiasts like us. Plus, the fast recharging and comprehensive protections make it even more convenient. Check it out if you're looking for a high-quality power solution!
Thirty years ago we used a bank of 10 top grade (Arco) solar panels for our home in the Sahara Desert. Yes they worked well, especially since there was no alternative. But after 10 years in that environment they had lost 25% or more of their output. I think the talk of a 30-40 year lifespan is very optimistic. It's like the advertisements for electric cars "It will get UP TO 400 miles on a charge". But I do appreciate your analysis including the cost of manufacturing the panels vs constructing a gas or nuclear plant, and also the recycling issue.
You are talking about the 90' and in the Sahara, in 30 years we have improved a lot and now most of the panels are guaranteed to have 90-95% after 10 years and 80% after 20-30 years. They can guarantee that because the actual degradation is less than that, the car manufacturers that say 400 miles they are not guaranteeing, instead they say "up to".
Except only concept cars are getting 400 miles. The vast majority of not all of the actually produced EVs are 350 and under.
@@DanielSann Try running a tiny window air conditioner from solar 24/7, rain or shine, and get back with me.
Keep in mind, that Car companies exagerrate the MPG performance of their cars....wildly. Those MPG ratings are in ideal conditions where the car is driven properly by a highly skilled driver.
@@ericerickson592 Right now I googled solar panels, and second link has 25 year warranty for 80%+ output. Warranty, so 1. it's most likely gonna not gonna be that bad, and 2. you can continue to use them below 80% power. That's easily 30+ years. Even if they only lasted for 20 years, they are some of the cleanest power generation we have.
I have had 5 solar companies here in Arizona pitch me and they came in at $41K before tax credit that would bring the install down to around $28K for 24 panels, but I simply do not be the cost savings benefit, my bill is usually around $100-$150 a month, with the solar panels my bill would go up to $180 a month. I like the idea of solar but I'm simply not sold on the benefit of it. I would basically be swapping an electric bill for a solar panel payment bill.
Aussie here, recently installed 7.4kw panels and a Tesla Powerwall. In the 4 months since install, we have not drawn energy from the grid, our electricity bill is zero.
AUD$24500 outlay, AUD $3000 per annum off power bill. 8 year payback without considering the benefits of blackout avoidance, being able to run the AC for less than 9 cents an hour, and avoiding future energy cost increases
Recycling solar panels should be easy. The silicon is cheap. But the trace elements and rare earths are a higher concentration than virgin mined materials.
that's good to know, I was wondering about how, in like let's say 50 years, we would have such an amount of trash
Silicon is cheap, yes, but extremely pure silicon like that in solar panels is not cheap to produce.
I would think after recycling the rest of the components, solar panel manufactures would want to buy back recycled panel silicon because it is already so pure.
The problem is the other stuff like the protective enameled glass/plastic coating that's practically bonded to the silicon. How do you separate the two and can you maintain the high purity of the silicon with minimal reprocessing if you do?
"We don’t inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
--Native American proverb
That is not a 'Native American' proverb.
@@FilipCordas it can't be directly attributed to it's source. -Some Earthling would probably suffice.
Wow where have I been - Mind if I borrow that proverb
@@musiccalgary I'm intrigued and interested in what you have to say but I don't understand. I assume at this point that you are telling us that all peoples are selfish and that no culture is doing a better job at focusing inward toward community.
"Native american"
What tribe? Who?
"The native americans" we are not one people! If your going to quote something, do research and do it properly. Don't be mad because I'm upset, instead a little empathy and understanding.
"Education breeds confidence. confidence breeds hope. Hope breeds peace"
-The Asians
We are going solar at the end of October 2020.
Can't wait.
You helped me convince my wife with all your amazing videos. And her biggest fear was "environment impact while making and end of life". Now, she will be even happier with our decision.
Matt, you are amazing. Love your channel and the way you explain everything. I would love for more videos though :)
Has your insurance company raised your rates or cancelled your policy?
@@lc285 i had called but nope.
Matt, I LOVE that you do all the research and I just have to listen. Matt Ferrell University. Another great video for your students. Thanks.
great video Matt as usual. Love our PV system and can't imagine not being solar from here on out. Recycling is key and as a country we need to move to the forefront rather than always trailing the rest of the globe. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for this great video! But what about the energy cost of recycling?
great video as always! super well researched and beautifully edited... information as entertainment. Thank you.
I feel as though batteries (which I know you covered in other videos) need to be included in the environmental costs of solar since solar depends on sun and it’s reasonable to expect consumers to have 1 or 2 batteries minimum.
True enough, but then for a fair comparison you would have to also include the costs of demand surge power for non-solar power, which involves additional power plants that go on and offline as needed.
Eric Slavich I’m not sure I follow exactly what you’re saying. If you have any reading references to help me understand your point, I would appreciate it. Thanks for your reply.
@@brianp9937 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant
Dude, I always find your content to be rational and informative. But this one was simply outstanding! Great job. Thanks!
Great video Matt, love the figures breakdown. Keep up the excellent work. Your hard work makes it easy for people to understand and make informed decisions.
It’s such a shame that nuclear technologies are ignored. Yes the existing plant is big, expensive and needs costly active systems to keep it safe. We now have fully engineered designs ready to go. The hold up is the incredibly slow regulatory system. I’m thinking about Moltex and Elysium who have waste burning plants that use up the stored waste nuclear fuel we have at every existing plant.
They are not even expensive. Removing the stuff that can potentially overheat or leak or explode pushes down the cost. Moltex has already been costed below the price of a gas fired plant. Fuel costs are negative because they are taking away high level nuclear waste.
Nuclear is very expensive per MWH compared with renewables and this is resulting in projects being cancelled everywhere - the UK has had two projects dropped in the last few months and I don't expect Hinkley Point C ever being completed and going into service.
Biggest problem with nuclear is long term management after decommissioning the costs of which are invariably passed onto future generations and not properly costed into projects. EDF in France is in deep trouble now as there are a load of reactors about to end service and they will have to start decomissioning soon and they don't have it budgeted for - the French state will have to bail them out big time.
Another issue with nuclear is the mining and purification of fuel which has a large environmental impact.
A discussion about EDF costs can be found at this link. www.nuclear-transparency-watch.eu/activities/nuclear-decommissioning/how-much-will-it-really-cost-to-decommission-the-ageing-french-nuclear-fleet.html
losalamosreporter.com/2020/09/14/small-modular-reactor-decision-made-with-inadequate-information/
I don't think it's ignored. There's a lot of movement and investment into next gen nuclear, but it's more expensive. Utilities will always gravitate towards the lower $ per MWh.
One aspect of embedded CO2 in panels is that it is critically dependant on the energy sources during panel manufacture. If you use gas produced electricity then it works out at about 450g/kwh for the primary power during manufacture. This then shows up as a high embodied CO2 cost per panel. However if you use solar power to produce the power to manufacture the panels then you are down at about 40g/kwh which means the embodied CO2 in the panel is correspondingly lower. If you then repeat this process using the new panels to produce power for the next generation then the figures drop again as you ratchet downwards. You cannot do this if you are using fossil fuels to produce the energy to manufacture the panels.
That was covered by the energy payback time. Turning fossil fuel energy into 10x the solar energy is not a bad investment. It ultimately accelerates the push to solar, which means less fossil fuel use in the long term.
Good point!
@@Bobucles Maybe, but nobody mentions that when they say renewables or EVs have CO2 footprint. It is always "solar panels are made with coal!" "Wind turbines are made with coal!" "EVs are made with coal!" And then those panels are assumed to be installed upside down inside a coal mine so they will never produce more power than it took to make them, and finally they are set on fire and the ashes fed to endangered animals so you can say they couldn't be recycled and they release poisons into nature.
@@AnalystPrime The world has enough strawmen. Don't waste effort making new ones, they're been doing it far longer and far better than you ever could.
In any event the industrialized world NEEDS energy and it doesn't particularly care where that energy comes from. The best weapon against fossil fuel energy is to keep developing solar/wind/renewable energy and make it the best, cheapest solution out there. Solar has a massive advantage over other options because it doesn't require special land or high skilled workers to set up. There are real world obstacles to setting up wind (too tall), hydro(location), coal(loud/dirty) or nuclear power(NIMBY/high education). On the other hand, ANY idiot can plop down a solar panel and become their own energy provider. The competitive market loves that kind of stuff, and that's going to push solar power harder than other options.
Thanks! I'm building a storage shed and will be using Solar/battery just for this shed. We'll be my first foray and test before applying to my home.
That's a great way to dip your toe into it. Smart move!
Good one you've answered the question that was on my mind for some time now.. Thank you 🙂
I am buying the hardware little by little and have some great prices now but with 390 watt panels each (locally) not including other product prices. Most are fairly reasonable also. My biggest issue that I am struggling for is how many panels I would need to operate off solar during the day yet keeping the batteries charged for night use. When it comes to the math of doing the panels first, this has been a headache that I can't figure out as I am having those installed first by someone else since I can't get on the roof but the rest of the set up, I am doing myself.
Hmm mm? Did you take into account the mining of rare metals and the lakes of polution in China where they are mined when doing your comparisons?
Great job Matt - clear, concise, important information. Well, delivered, as always.
Much appreciated!
I think one area you should have covered more of, is energy density, storage, efficiency loss, and grid stability. You should also do a video specifically on nuclear fission.
superb as usual, thank you for your excellent work!
One of the big remaining barriers is costs of preventative regulation. My state (Florida) is trying to make it hard for people to use solar in their homes in order to prop up the status quo.
Damn it. Your state has retards officials.
Florida is populated by elderly retired people, many of whom caused climate change in the first place. You have to elect young dynamic Democrats. Never mind, they will soon be under water.
Actually, net zero metering is the law in Florida. Besides building substantial capacity (though not as much as some other states) for large scale generation by the utilities, every homeowner in Florida has the right to install solar and get one for one credit for power they generate beyond their usage against power you use at other times. That is a net cost to other non-solar households because they are paying solar homes at the retail rate for generation, not wholesale cost, and as a regulated industry those costs are directly passed to all homes, so it is done specifically to encourage Florida homeowners to install solar, not to discourage it. In what other ways are you seeing Florida as trying to make it hard for people to use solar? It may be there, but I don't see it.
@@madsciencegary3830 have a look here -- www.nytimes.com/2019/07/07/business/energy-environment/florida-solar-power.html
July 7, 2019
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Florida calls itself the Sunshine State. But when it comes to the use of solar power, it trails 19 states, including not-so-sunny Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Maryland.
Solar experts and environmentalists blame the state’s utilities.
The utilities have hindered potential rivals seeking to offer residential solar power. They have spent tens of millions of dollars on lobbying, ad campaigns and political contributions. And when homeowners purchase solar equipment, the utilities have delayed connecting the systems for months. ....
@@wlhgmk Small correction: "Young dynamic electoral candidates". Takes 2 to tango. Don't dismiss all GOP simply because the average are anti-green energy. There are changes that need to happen within that demographics as well. Otherwise it will be a constant battle of yin and yang.
Our rooftop system (now almost 3 years in operation) will pay back in less than 8 years. It would have been much longer and not economic were it not for two things. 1) Federal incentives dropped the overall cost of the system by about 30%. 2) We bought a PHEV car which is also charged with the solar system. Having solar for the electric car not only made the purchase of the car more attractive but it also made the solar system a better deal.
The federal government taking money from my paycheck to pay for your car and personal power station does not reduce the cost, it reduces the amount of the cost you pay. That's like saying your new Rolls Royce was perfectly affordable for you because the government made me buy it for you. No one, private or business, would use solar if the government weren't paying large chunks of the actual cost and creating legal mandates to use them. Not only are my taxes going to pay for your personal property but the cost of my electricity goes up because my power company is forced to use more expensive options to produce the electricity they sell me.
@@HadToChangeMyName_UA-camSucks I completely agree - let the government cease any and all business subsidies. Including direct subsidies to oil and gas companies ($666M between 1950 and 2016, in 2015 dollars) and indirect subsidies for the oil industry via special treatment in the tax code. And let's not forget the biggest subsidy to big oil - the provision by the Department of Defence of the US Army, Navy and Air Force to go bail them out when their investment in a foreign regime goes South.
Another amazing and well-done video. Easy to digest! Thank you so much!
25/30 years at current rates
Hi Matt. I live in MA also. I invested in Solar this year. Interconnected in mid January.
As of June/July, I’ve banked about $700 in net metering and been paid about $500. NG is catching up to paying me. I’ve paid $0 in elect/heat since May. My April bill was $60!
I’ve renovated and removed my 30yr old oil furnace. I use exclusively Mitsubishi hyper heat mini splits. Also have closed cell spray foam in 75% of the walls.
Hopefully (2) Powerwalls coming soon. Wanted (3). But somehow, where I live I was told an upgrade to transformer needed to happen. And get this price to do this was between $2k & $60k!! LOL.
Great video. As always.
Hi Dbonaire,
I live in MA also. I changed my heating system from oil to heat pump (Mitsubishi mini splits) in 2021 but my elect bill during this 3 months (Dec-Feb) is not funny. Averaging $750 for a single family house. So i am looking at switching to solar. I got offer for the panel & installation of about $60k and i will be paying $190 per month. Though the rate looks good on paper but i don't know how effective solar system is in winter. What is your experience in the last 4 months.
Excellent review, but in the net energy calculation, you left out the energy required to recycle the panels back into raw materials. If your original calculation included things like the mining, smelting, and extruding of aluminum, I can see how the direct energy use could be less.
However, complex recycling can COST more. That cost has its own energy footprint in the form of an industrial workforce.
Much to consider.
The Jedi mind trick of glossing over the one argument that basically explains why every solar projeect ever devised failed miserably. At best he more or less ends with something along the lines of 'sure we'll have to bury all this stuff in 30 years because otherwise we'll go bankrupt".... There is a reason that no solar panel manufacturer operates using only energy produced by the very panels that they make.... Let alone provide a closed loop manufacture and recycling operation that is only powered by the very panels that they make ....
@@robertsmith4681 the energy cost of recycling is about the same as producing the panels (it's still profitable though, since you get back the raw materials!). So this would bring the payback period from 4 to 8 years - still a net gain with a 30+ years life cycle. (And those 4 years are outdated anyways - it's more like 1.5 years even today according to www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/Photovoltaics-Report.pdf)
@@stephanweinberger If it works in numbers then why didn't anybody ever manage to make it work in practice ... ?
@@robertsmith4681 erm... where hasn't it worked in practice? Are you talking about solar panels (thousands of commercial installations worldwide) or concentrated solar power (a couple of test installations)?
When are these $1 - $2 per watt panels coming out? I think I'll wait for them, unless we are talking decades.
Levelized cost of electricity is insanely misleading when you compare reliable and unreliable sources at the same time, i hate how everyone is using it because its serves their renewable agenda.
How is it the "full picture" when its literally ignores every cons of renewable, while none of the other sources(coal, nuclear, gas) has any of those cons? Why is intermittency not present in this cost? That what makes the grid insanely expensive, you cannot just ignore that part and say renewables is cheap, because not, they are expensive when you look at the whole system.
Hi Matt, I have been watching your channel for a while now, and have just requested an estimate for solar here in the Uk. I was so shocked £7600 for 11 panels and a 16KW battery ! We are just waiting for our electric meter to be changed to a smaet meter , then we can send electricity back when we have surplus !
I would guess majority of the comments against solar panels have a backup in the money the oil industry used over last decade against anything non-oil. For me, the most interesting aspect of solar is the new idea of agri-solar - providing shade for crops, limiting water usage, increasing yield while producing electricity. Sounds like a miracle to me ;)
Providing shade for crops? Why?
@@tristanmorris5646 With global warming it seems that irrigation is no longer effective - excessive sun evaporates the water faster than plants can use it. That's where shade comes and the plants benefit from it. There was some video about US farmers trying to go in this direction.
@@rklauco Interesting, thanks!
Is the oil industry also against nuclear energy
If anyone has any solar panels they want to get rid of, send em my way. I can't find any old ones cheap locally. There's to much money in recycling. /s
If anyone has some burned up coal they want to get rid of, send it my way. I can't find any burned up coal locally. There's too much money in recycling. /s
I have found cheap, used panels locally (Europe) and return of investment was 1.5 - 2 years. Free hot water for rest of my life. ;-P
@@furripupau I would not mind to get limitless amounts of free ash, that I could sell to local cement factory. (what a waste of materials and sarcasm)
Great video! Maybe a follow up video on solar energy storage recycling?
Well being a Solar owner this is now what I am facing on August 2,2021 we had a power surge from our electric Co-op company.It fired our surge protector box and 22 Microinverters on our solar panels our solar company said that our Microinverters are not covered under warranty for this type of action by the Electric Co-Op our Surge protect box was covered under warranty but not our Microinverters something wrong with this picture.Our Electric Co-Op told us to file with our home owner's insurance told them so this means I have to pay for your fault to my solar system so for no luck finding a lawyer to take any type of action.Our solar system is still down today so we are now at the mercy of our Electric Co-Op Company.
8:55, there was an attempt, but 'Veolia' is pronounced like 'Ve' (as in 'very'), 'O', 'Lja' (the last part is pronounced like the German 'yes', 'ja').
Is this industry standard or the best-case scenario for solar panel production?
It's good to hear. I think solar cells will be a big part of the way forward, especially when installed locally with storage and in combination with HVAC strategies to reduce afternoon peak energy consumption.
Those solar fields drive me crazy though. There are more than enough warehouses and parking lots out there to cover in panels to negate the need for a solar field. Will they lose active tracking? Probably. But at least we wouldn't be wrecking grasslands or reducing available farmland in the name of "clean energy".
My position is that solar is monumentally better than coal. The Harvard Medical School did a study five years ago that concluded the deleterious health costs of burning coal in the USA total between $300 to 500 billion per year. That's over $1000 per person per year! If the utilities want to pass that cost on to their rate payers, I'd be glad to talk about the life cycle costs of solar.... And PV panels last 50 years no problem.
I'd be worried about the additional cost to re-roof my house if solar panels need to be removed in order to do that repair.
unless you are installing a Tesla roof tile system, or other PV roof tiles, you do not need to re roof while changing over your PV panels. Support frames are fixed to your roof structure, then panels are fixed on the support frame. Support frames are mostly universal, which can be reused for future panels.
Third?!
Let's have a great battery day today!! Nice video thank you
Really excited to see what they unveil.
It would have been nice to see the comparison include home / grid level storage impacts as these will be needed to offset the ability of carbon fuel sources to closely fit demand.
Great video again Matt. Reinforces my decision to install solar on my house. Just signed my contract and hope to have my system online before December this year. 8 KW system using (20) 400 Watt monocrystalline panels and Enphase microinverters. $2.45 per watt before federal tax credit. I've got a great south facing roof with zero shade. In my opinion, stupid not to install.
Have they been installed? If so, can you provide real metrics?
what about the impact of all the massive batterys that are needed to truly make solar useful for powering well anything at night
Also what about the invironmental impact of mining for the materials used to make solar panels.
Batteries from the automotive sector are useful to recycle into homes because homes don't need power the same way as EVs. They can then be recycled to their base materials and made into new batteries. There are a few US companies doing it already but more will come once there is more money to be made in it. I would assume that the same would be said about the solar panels once they are degraded beyond use.
@@nniemeyernn2 only problem I still see their is how much is still actually usable. I don't see this as remotely sustainable until graphine and carbon nanotube batteries are in full production. Furthermore all these people with ev cars and batteries etc. Unless they have the pannels to produce the power all the electricity is still coming from coal and oil power plants.... and now it's far less efficient than gas due to the up to 30% efficacy loss in our power grid
@@jrflxcrpz lol someone obviously never watched the video
I was hoping to see the gentleman respond to these comments. I would like to credit him for endeavoring this deeply complex issue and admired the metrics that were captured here. However, I feel that we did not discuss the environmental impacts of the mining process, shipping the panels to their destination, as well as net loss over an inefficient grid system. If anyone can drop a link to fully explanatory study I would appreciate it, especially as it compares to natural gas. We need to understand also, a panel environmentally pays for itself in 4 years as to the energy took to make one, but we need a number to track how many years of carbon emissions from nat gas are equal to one year with solar while factoring in all emissions associated with mining, shipping, manufacturing, shipping, shipping again, then installing.
Do the pros outweigh the cons? I think so. On the whole recycle thing, besides improvements to efficiency they need to improve solar cells for longevity(150+ years). Another very good video. Thanks Matt.
Thanks, Dennis. I agree ... many angles that the tech can be improved on.
@@UndecidedMF Don't expect big improvements. Law of diminishing returns.
In about 5 years the price will be even lower and the technology will be twice as better. I want to go green so I've made many improvements to my home including a hybrid water heater but Solar is not a good option yet even in Florida
@@TELEVISIONARCHIVES I was living in a place where they started with solar hot water. Later, the home owner got solar panels(3kW). Between these 2 items, it cut our energy expenses by 60%. It was a leased system, so no out of pocket.
The only question for any renewable energy, is the amount of energy produced by whatever process you want to use, matched with the same energy burning fossil fuels. What pollutes more?
This accounts for transportation, maintenance, and decommission. This also accounts for the raw material needed to create these machines that make power. That raw material takes trucks, and fuel to transport it from Point A to B. As well as melting that raw material down, and refining it further, to be used correctly.
EDIT: I made the comment before the video, and the video actually addresses some of these topics. Which was surprising. Good video.
In Germany we are Facing a big Problem. Our 'Renewable Energy Law' needs to be redone, everything new in it is written by coal and fossil fuel lobby. Old systems need to be replaced or a lot of money in them to be allowed to use the power for ourself. New systems are limited in power and are put under more regulation, net metering is not possible, you're power company gets even more control and can turn of the system... And the worst: The Roll-out for new systems is limited by law... you get less than 7 cents (net)/kWh, while paying more than 20 cents (net)/kWh...
if you build more than 10kWp system, you need to pay extra fees on every kWh you use yourself!!, even if the EU said this is illegal!
Wow, I knew they messed up with their green energy roll-out but I didn't realize they actually skewed the rules in such an extreme way. Hopefully neighboring countries will show how things should be done. Now there's Octopus Energy (originally British company) that is making waves with their energy system and applications. They recently bought a German energy provider to enter the German market. So maybe look into them? (I don't have any personal experience with them, but from what I've read they're very interesting and make good use of Green Energy generation intermittence balancing etc.).
Have you analyzed where coal and oil came form? I think you will find the energy source was solar and the carbon everyone is worried about was in the atmosphere or in plants. So, burning oil and coal is simply releasing solar energy stored in a different form. 😁.
you never heard of the carbon equation, is my bet
@@craigbailey7558 I win the bet. What is my prize?
Would love to hear part 2 that expands the cost calculation to include the on-demand gas/nuclear power plants that have to be on standby to level the load and provide power after sunset. If every megawatt of solar has to be backed up with a megawatt of gas, that changes the overall cost picture dramatically.
Batteries, yo. The ultimate goal is to bank up solar during the day, and lean on batteries at night. New battery designs are getting crazy good and even last over 10 years, making it viable.
the amount of those peaker plants can be at least halved, and the panels are just a fraction of the cost - do the math...
As @bob notes the answer is storage not peaker plants. Batteries and Gravity based systems are the future.
You can have a mix of peaker plants and batteries or just batteries. In the end even with these peaker plants/batteries economically it is at least competitive with other non fossil sources. And as battery costs keep falling and its production keeps rising and possibly Vehicle-2-Grid gets used with an increasing amount of EV's, costs might drop much lower. In several places around the world having a solar array together with a battery bank is already cheaper and more reliable than the grid.
Nevertheless, it would be nice to know the exact economic numbers of renewables + back-up plants.
@@MDP1702 I guess there aren't any exact numbers, because the whole industry is changing so quickly. Even 5 years ago the projections were seeing only a slow decrease in solar and battery cost, and all the experts were saying it will be half in 20 years, maybe 10 if we're lucky... reality has proven vastly different.
There is also the very real issue of land use. Panels on your home’s roof is one thing, but that can only provide a tiny fraction of total need. In many areas, installing enough solar just to provide the DAYTIME needs of a city will require significant habitat destruction in the surrounding area - if not outright clear cutting.
A nuclear power plant might require around a square mile of land. In 10 years, how much power could such a plant generate? If the same site were used as a solar farm instead, how much less power would be produced? 50%? 1%?
It's around 1/5 of the required space for nuclear compared to solar. Which I think included the enrichment and mining facilities. I couldn't the paper I saw that in.
It's really difficult to put a nuclear plant on your roof, or down town. Mixed use solar installations aren't really a problem.
There is plenty of already used land area where solar can be used. Roofs are one thing (and many roofs still don't have solar), but what about parking lots for example? Hell, you can even combine solar panels with agriculture, in more arid regions (like Arizona) it even helps with lower water usage and larger crops due to the shade provided.
So land use should really be a problem. It is just that it is easier filling up not used land for now. Regulation could change that though.
Why is every @Undecided video amazing!! Great work Matt.
I'm blushing. Glad you liked it!
ahh its good to hear some pleasant news in these dire times.
can you make a video about the economics of recycling lithium batteries? I have a feeling that those will become a problem much much sooner if we don't figure out ways to effieciently recycle them in the near future.
Recycle ? Virtually nothing is recycled on this f.. planet. Plastics were send to China until 2017, now to Indonesia. Old electronics components are sent to Africa where they are burned. Paper and cardboard are also burned to generate power in biomass pps. Only valuable stuff (metals mostly) is recycled. We recycle less than 8% of what is produced !
@@VFatalis ... which is why a video about recycling LiIon batteries would be interesting.
Tesla has gone into this with a company (I seem to remember it is called Redpath) for recycling batteries as they come to the end of their life. A ton of batteries is a richer ore in all of the metals it contains than anything you can did out of the ground.
Not to suggest Matt couldn't make an interesting and informative video on this topic, but you could check out this episode of Fully Charged on the topic. The plant actually gets a good amount of power from discharging the batteries before they recycle them. ua-cam.com/video/Bpe8HalVXFU/v-deo.html
See Tesla Battery Day
I have a few questions.
Do the numbers for manufacturing the panels include the pollution from the mining process?
Does this include the other equipment needed for a functional system? Batteries, inverters, etc.
Notice how people ask this question only on Better green tech ? Get a grip better is better you are free to not have it
Sounds promising. It would interesting to see the same kinds of "studies" on Lithium batteries and/or Powerwalls and their equivalents.
Thanks, you answered most of the questions asked to me this week.
Awesome!
You forgot about all the batteries needed for solar when making your cost analysis.
True. But batteries are not mandatory, so maybe that’s why he left them out.
@@petergoestohollywood382 you need batteries for cloudy days and nights. in other words, more than 50% of the time.
@@kenbarney3843 I heard there are options to sell your excess energy produced from the solar panel back to your local government grid. That way you can offset your energy bills to net zero even during cloudy days without buying a battery. There's was a video that explain that on youtube, look it up.
@@bbq6992 not talking about the individual. I am talking about the entire grid. Power usage rises and falls and must meet that demand exactly. To do this with solar you need massive batteriy facilities.
Just for the most simple example, energy demad goes up at night. To meet this demand with solar you woukd have needed to produce more than twice the KwH needed during the day and stored that energy in batteries.
Add to that the problem with batteries losing charge in cold weather. This was part of the problem in Texas just recently when an extreme cold snap caused increased demand. At the sane time the grid battery storage lost 60% of it's charge due to the cold. This is only 1 factor in what happened but it is a major factor that needs to be consdidered.
With Net metering laws, you don't need batteries. You sell excess energy back to the grid and use it for free when it's cloudy or at night.
No question, solar power is the future of energy. Everyone should do a quick exercise and look at Google maps over any city or town in the U.S., and world, and see how much roof space there is and how few solar panels there are and imagine if every bit of every roof was covered with solar PV. We could easily produce the majority of our energy if we did this.
Russell,
no we cannot, it's so concentrated during a small part of the day. It is hugely disruptive to the grid due to that. Then there is the rather inconvenient fact that in winter, certainly at U.K. latitudes there is virtually nothing generated, What do you use then? It's use is offgrid for small loads that are not constrained by time such as my stand by genertaor and camper van batteries. For wholesale power generation it is very poor.
@@iareid8255 Yes, we can and we will, just watch, both utilities and individual customers will continue to add solar to the point where it produces most of the power we need. Solar works just fine on cloudy, rainy days, it just produces less, I know, I worked for a U.K. company, in Loughborough, for many years, and lived in the U.K., on and off, for several years and even on cloudy winter days, the panels would produce. On those days, hydro and wind will make up the difference. I've never suggested we'll produce all of our power via solar but estimates are that we'll produce: ~50% via solar and the rest from wind and hydro, dependent on the region. I've spent the past 15 years working closely with power utilities around the world and every one of them are fully planning on implementing as much solar and possible, w/ battery backup, and add wind and hydro, in areas that make the most sense. Nuclear, coal and nat. gas are all phasing out.
Russell,
you do not seem to accept that unreliable renewables cannot produce a reliable grid. There is not a chance that having a power source that cannot load follow will work.
Hydro is a good way but the available capacity is small for most countries.
The very good reason that power utilities are utilising these poor sources of power is simply finacial incentives given by politicians who do not understand or care if they disrupt a perfectly stable grid with ubsuitable sources of power. There is a limit to how much asynchronous power with no inertia can be incorporated.
I assume, with your power utility experience you understand asynchronism and inertia?
I suggest you have a look here for real time and historic U.K. grid data:- www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Note particularly the solar contribution for winter, virtually nothing and absolute zero when most required (as it is dark). Wind, too, can have long periods of very low output.
So two factors, intermittent output and the need for conventional generation to balance the grid increase cost and reduce reliability. This balancing cost is steadily increasing as renewables are added. Frequency events have doubled in the last few years, another indication that the grid is less stable than before.
Look forward to black out Britain
@@iareid8255 Clearly, you do not understand what you're talking about and it's getting exhausting talking to fools who do 0% research and understand the facts. Fossil fuels are intermittent and will ALL be gone one day soon, in the meantime, they are killing over 4 million humans/year, causing millions of more health problems and killing our planet by rapidly warming it. Wind farms produce energy ~85% of the time and solar: ~50% of the time, we all know this so utilities add more capacity and store the excess for stormy days and night time, this is how they're doing it now and will continue long in the future. Yes, ALL of our power will one day come from solar, wind and hydro, just watch, it will happen. Some countries are already doing this, it's no pipe dream.
The only thing that will black out Britain is fossil fuel pollution that would potentially destroy the island. Do yourself a favor and do some research before commenting on things you don't understand.
Russell,
you have not answered one of my points. As for not understanding the facts, I have very many years in the power industry and understand very well how generation and distribution works. Your fantasy world is just that and will not be able to run a grid reliably
Fossil fuels have sustained life, not destriyed it, your way will set us back to medieval times with a far shorter life span and much worse health and prosperity. Where do you get the ide athat fossil fuels will be gone soon, no it is you that needs to do some real research and see what is sensible and practical. The world is not rapidly heating, that si so much hyperbole in the media. current increase is in the order of 0.014 degrees per decade The U.K. has been far warmer no more than three centuries ago, this is normal, climate varies naturally.
we had solar panels on our roof back in 1982 in Perth Western Australia. we heated & cooled with house & heated the water with it. cut our power bills in half. can't believe how slow things have moved. but good news we are making some real headway with it.
We designed and installed our own solar system on our home. After rebates 7500W costs us around 4k. We are grid tied and use our EVs as the batteries any excess we get credit from our electric company. Our first panels were 120w. The latest ones we put on this year are 350w and cost the same per panel. At this rate the panels will keep getting much cheaper.
compare that to the heavy metals from burning coal.
and that pesky black lung disease
I don’t like being “undecided”. I like being decisive.
If you add a geothermal AC system that extracts heat from your roof from the sunlight hitting your panels, you could use that solar heat to heat your home.
In a similar way a solar water heater works.
👍
Hi, that has been tried before (many times over), it works but not well. At the practical level, today it is better to run a heat pump cooling-heating (COP typically at 3 or so) with the electricity of PV.
When do you need to heat the building? in the Winter when the Sun is shinning the least. When will the Solar Heating capacity be the greatest? In the Summer when you do not need it.
I find this video very informative even for people who study solar energy a lot. :)
By the way, is this part of internet right to find investors for solar farm project?
Excellent, well presented. You also need to add the old adage that 'necessity is the mother of invention,' as time progresses and volume grows, costs go down. So if we keep environmental considerations in the public eye, the loop is closed. The industry will follow the most profitable path; we just need to task them and support the best environmental and cost-efficient solution, not necessarily today, but for the future.
Just read an article on how putting to many solar panels to close together would actually cause global warming. We are told we need football fields of solar panels(solar farms), preferably in deserts, but in the middle of a field would work too. So because the panels are darker than the surroundings they absorb a significant amount of sunlight of which they only use at most under 25%. They then collectively radiate 75% of that energy back into our atmosphere, which actually causes global warming. The bigger the farm the more exaggerated this effect would be. Which is a problem because solar panels are not effective economically unless you put them close together. So here they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to prove anthropologic co2 based global warming and have never provided a thread of consistent data which proves it(which basically proves it has nothing to do with it) and come to find out the very tech that they say we need to transition to to prevent global warming actually scientifically has been proven to cause global warming. Love it!! Oh and yea forests are significant producers of co2 by the way, just a cherry on top for all the co2 warming loons. Oh and meat production done in a regenerative or holistic manner actually reduces co2, and for the third and final cherry vegans are not only contributing to degradation of our soils but also have a higher co2 foot print than your average meat eater. All science 🧐😎😂
5th? love the content Matt!
Glad to hear it. Thanks!
The pros definitely outweigh the cons. We've been building commercial solar and community solar projects for over 10 years. This is the power of the now, not just the future!
The energy have to be stored
Im gonna go on a limb here (partly because this is my current plan for mine) and assume that the more widespread adoption of variable speed drives in things like air conditioners will prolong the life of solar panels beyond the 30 years, especially as more and more become willing to accept the native dc output from solar. ex..... Mine is currently sized to cover full demand so gradual increasing efficiency of appliances as they die and get replaced along with eliminating double conversion inefficiency in variable speed drives should theoretically extend the usable life beyond the 30 years as there would essentially be no ROI for replacing with new panels. Disclaimer thats residential on site solar not utility scale solar. I am only supplying myself
“Undecided” video on solar power sponsored by a solar company. I shut it off right there.
Squarespace is for building websites and have nothing to do with solar panels ...
Sees title: Yes.
Informative Show-Thank You.
I'm hoping to build a house in the near future. Thanks to your videos, solar is going to be really high on the list of designed in features.
I think Solar Panels should look like Trees, then when you fill a field full of them it looks natural......
I think Michael Moore gets a lot of hate for just being the bearer of bad news
Plus he seems like a horrible human being
Bitchute is better than UA-cam nah, he’s an honest and genuine guy. I’m happy I got to meet him
Michael Moore is a clown and his latest documentary proves it.
@@kevinsheppard7517 like I said only because his the bearer of bad news
abeer hasan when it is lie it is not news.
Important video to make. Solar is a significant improvement over fossil fuels in every way, and we need to deploy them as fast as possible, even if recycling infrastructure is not set up yet, because they are replacing fossil fuels, which pollute significantly more and also don't have recycling.
Thanks, Alex.
Per tony Seba
When the cost of solar drops below the cost of grid transmission .....
7:03. Yes, you look like you have at least 30 years left in you. :p
Ha!!!!
I don't like titles "the truth about..."
Chul Hogan boo hoo for you...
Appreciate the feedback.
@@UndecidedMF Its because it remind me of those conspiracy channels, but hey, maybe it is just me, the content was very good tho
What about the study where they found most solar panels have a 20-50% loss of production in the first couple years? Is this no longer a factor? Do the account for the loss of production in the install? If this is still the case, how do you make up for the loss. What about the fact that large industrial solar companies replace at the least 10 to 15 panels a day either due to breakage malfunction or decay. What about the carbon created to mine the minerals to make the solar panels? (not sure if that was mentioned I was listening while working and don’t recall) What about the micro environmental effects done to the soil at these sites. They are finding that the soil basically dies around these sites? From everything that I’ve seen green energy is far from green
Very well put together and presented video. I do wonder how much space a solar panel farm needs to generate 100MW compared to an equivalent coal, gas or nuke plant. I would anticipate in densely populated areas such as NJ, that the high land prices and property taxes would be a major factor into the overall cost per KW/hr.
Actually, not 100mw but let's go for the big prize. The U.S. in 2019 generated 4.1 trillion kw of which maybe 20% (my guess) was from renewables. And with 300 million EV's, add another 3 trillion kw. THAT's what to estimate. :D
Once again, it is *impossible*, by the laws of physics, to create or generate energy. We can at most convert energy into different forms, i.e., from solar energy to electrical energy.
people who argue against renewable energies: "but it not literally perfect magic that will forever take care of itself and give you free ice cream, we should stick to coal"
😂🤣😂
Great info. Thanks. What about contamination from making and disposing batteries?
I bought solar panels for my house about a year ago and I have mixed feelings about them. Your experience will be specific to your state, but in my state when you link to the power grid through the electrical company they get your solar credits, and they pay far below market value here. While the panels do defray my electrical bill - to nearly zero most months - it has increased my total cost, albeit while supposedly adding equity to my house. Solar panels themselves do not have an off switch, so they increase the likelihood of a house fire and can complicate firefighting. I think society would be better off if we left electricity generation to the pros and nuclear energy.
If you are in a state that is deregulated, you need to search out a supplier that buys back cent for cent.
Thanks for a realistic comment. Electric companies never pay what they charge you.
Matt, you should consider looking into System LCOE instead of just pure LCOE:
aseanenergy.org/going-beyond-lcoe-the-real-costs-of-variable-renewable-energy/
A power plant where output can be controlled vs renewables that can't be controlled, can never be an apples to apples comparison.
Also, what is the LCA of nuclear vs Solar? I couldn't find anything from your source
According to Vattenfall (I've linked this before), Solar is much much worse than Nuclear in an LCA analysis:
group.vattenfall.com/dk/siteassets/danmark/om-os/baeredygtighed/lca-brochure-2018.pdf
That pamphlet is from 2018 but says nothing about when the data was collected. Since the last 5 years alone, a lot has changed regarding nuclear vs solar.
Nuclear provides a very good base load but has two major problems. One is the huge up-front investment cost that requires decades of planning, building and testing before finally starting to operate the plant - let alone turn a profit. Just look at the new Gen 3 reactor in Olkiluoto, Finland, which will hopefully stand ready 17 years after initial construction, and add to that 5 years of planning. Even if it had went 100% according to plan, that would have been 10 years from conception to built! Do you know how many dirt-cheap solar cells and wind powered plants could have arisen for those money and time?
The second is inertia. A nuclear power plant can generate power for days after you shut it down, and similarly will take a day or two to get up to full speed when generating power. Today, with battery storage becoming ubiquotous, with an electric fleet covering a lot of battery storage and secondary units like Powerwalls picking up the slack, chances are big electricity will need to be net exported during certain hours of the day - there is simply too little demand in the grid. If the nuclear plant generates 1 GW of power, that 1 GW of power must be consumed. Somewhere. Somehow. Always. Else the grid will be overloaded.
I have nothing against Nuclear Power as such, I think it is a safe, modern and stable energy source. It just increasingly doesn't fit with where the rest of the world is headed.
Per beat me to some of my response. But you raise a very fair point for the variability when comparing solar alone against something like nuclear, coal, gas, etc. But the workaround for that is LCOE that includes energy storage paired with renewables instead of just solar alone ... or wind alone.
@@wertigon Hey Per, I can accept that, but I have yet to find any other that comes from a source as trusted as a power company that has financial incentive to make all sources look good. Since they operate both Nuclear, Water, Wind and Solar.
Regarding Olkiluoto, ALL European nuclear reactors being built now by EDF or similar are the first in almost 30 years. The supply chains, the knowledge has to be built up again from scratch, these projects were also modified during the design and implementation periods (Fukushima). Using them as the baseline for nuclear implementation is highly misleading willfully ignorant of all other construction. The average worldwide construction time for Nuclear in 2018 and 2019 was around 10 years, I am betting that this number will go down. Already the 2nd reactor at Hinckley Point C is being built 30% faster than the first one. Learning curve applies to both renewables and nuclear.
China is building reactors in 5 years, and Poland is targeting 7 years for theirs. UAE had theirs built in 8 years.
Nuclear power is not static like you're saying, The french nuclear power plants are load following, and can move their effect up and down by 3% per minute.
Regarding your last statement, I think Nuclear will increasingly find a place in the world, because we are headed to a place where you need enourmous amounts of reliable energy that doesn't have a colossal footprint, which Wind, Batteries and Solar all have. Nuclear is the most efficient way of generating energy. And solar and wind put enourmous strains on the grid, which isn't included in their cost.
@@UndecidedMF I took a closer look at Lazards latest (2019) LCOE and looked at the way they calculate the price for nuclear. I think it's a bit dishonest that a nuclear power plants lifespan is set to 40 years, when new ones are built for 60 year lifespans and many of the old ones have been modernized and allowed to as much as up to 80 years and might for further. This changes the equation completely. A nuclear power plant with an 60 or 80 year lifespan will generate enourmous amount of energy compared to having to rebuild a solar farm 2 or 3 times in the same period.
Lifespan part of LCOE: www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-130-vf.pdf (page 19/20)
And how much storage would be enough? Because there are almost no countries using storage as the backup, mainly biomass, coal, gas or hydro. Same for wind. There are batteries like the Tesla one in Hornsdale, but that's for peak consumption, not for effectively powering anything during a clouded day with no wind.
@@hsjakobsen How much storage do we need? Yes, interesting question, and the answer is probably less than you think.
If we assume for a moment no power is generated everywhere - our collected grid of solar, wind and hydroelectric power all have gone silent, and we want capacity for one day - then:
* Energy consumption for the whole of US in 2018 was 4, 222.5 TWh for that entire year
* If we count 4 500 TWh for an entire year for easy numbers, we get around 12 TWh average per day.
* This is however, the average, so lets say 20 TWh for a worst case scenario.
* Your average powerwall has around 13 kWh of electricity storage
* Your average EV has around 60 kWh of storage facility
So, in order to reach 1 day of capacity, that is 1 540 000 homes that will need a Powerwall to last one day of grid failure. For the entirety of the US. When it comes to EVs, the number decreases further, only around 350 000 cars would together fill that capacity.
So as you can see, far from an impossible number, even though it will not be perfectly spread out at the moment.
I am using solar panels to charge the battery bank in my camper-van... It pays of the cost really fast compared to having to run the engine or take into a campsite at 30$+ a night to get electricity that is the cost in Finland and even more in Norway. I have now only a 110w panel just to top of the starter battery when the car is parked for long periods. Now the sun is so low in the horizon and there is so much clouds that you get less then 1w power most of the time but it is enough to keep up with the battery discharge. Plan is a 1200w of panels as that is what is room for on top of the roof.
Thank you for that great info Matt. Your a 🌟
I'm paying 30 cents a KW and expect it to rise to 50 cents over the next 15 years. The financial benefit is the only reason I'm adding the complexity of solar to my home. I am proud of my carbon footprint.
Good video. Nice to hear accurate information on solar.
We can recycle 98% of materials easily. Remaining 2% is the dust in the air filters (crushing panels). It is a good, subsidized, profitable business. No need for subsidy. Amount of e-waste will grow, but recycling will grow as well. I see no problem here. Have you ever seen a huge pile of solar panels being dumped in a landfill? Have you ever seen a discarded solar panel? We tend to do things differently here in central Europe ;-)
Here in UK ROI is the big issue IMO. Panel cost is not the problem, but installers offsetting any panel price advantages and bumping installation costs. So really IMO here, it only makes sense DIY installation, but in the UK it is only legal for off-grid application.
our goverment in Slovakia is in favor of nuclear power. It cost many bilions of euros to build the second one with decade of delay and now we need bilions of reserve fund to destroy the old one. the most expensive electricity compare to country around us. most of the big company get below the cost discount on electricity to stay in production. my 4k solar panel on roof produce 100% energy i need from march till october, more than half in the winter. and some people still say solar is expensive and not effective...
Good analysis on the PANEL side of solar power. I can see a potential for a "distributed grid generation" system where literally _EVERY_ home and business has solar and/or wind generation tied into the grid. The problem arises when the wind isn't blowing enough to generate usable juice and there isn't enough sunlight (like in the northern US this time of year). Domestic LiFePo battery banks aren't bad, except for the co$t of course, and you have the "end-of-life" coming much sooner (and more often) for batteries than for the panels. Do you think _UTILITY_ scaled electric storage systems would be a viable solution with a distributed production scenario?
Great video! Please do one on the solar plants outside Las Vegas (Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project)
Hey Matt, what's up? love the channel, your critical thinking is always entertaining, greetings from the Dominican Republic.
Keep it up!
Its the regulations that cause the price to be higher. Permits, instpections, etc cause massive costs to the buyer.