4 ms·

Has the insurance & roof warranty issue been solved with panels on your roof? A few years ago I looked at putting solar panels on my roof. Both the company wh

Has the insurance & roof warranty issue been solved with panels on your roof? A few years ago I looked at putting solar panels on my roof. Both the company who roofed my house, and my insurance company - said it voided any warranty / claims against future roof damage if a solar panel was installed

jillesvangurp 2y ago
That sounds a like a local problem; or maybe your roof is really that bad. In some parts of the world double digit percentages of houses now have solar panels on them. That's only going to go up.
beembeem 2y ago
I went through this for a commercial installation on a flat roof. As long as the roofer inspected the penetrations made by the installation, the roof warranty was fine. Of course, this roofer also had a business line for installing panels so they had expertise in the area. Voiding the warranty is not a universal argument.
tuna74 2y ago
TFA claims that it is idiotic to put solar panels on residential roofs, but them somewhere where installation cost are low instead, like on the ground or maybe factory roofs.
- tfourb 2y ago
  As someone with plenty of solar on my roof, it is anything but idiotic. With government incentives it pays for itself in ten years and has a realistic life span of 25. It might comparatively more efficient/cheaper per watt to build solar on the ground or on large commercial structures, but that doesn't change the economics for individual home owners, which in many parts of the world are already positive.
  - opo 2y ago
    >... With government incentives… Money is fungible and not unlimited. A dollar given to you by your neighbors in their taxes to subsidize you would have gone much, much further if the money would have been spent to build solar by your power utility.
    - tfourb 2y ago
      That might be the case but the fact is that these incentives exist and eligible home owners that don’t use them are in effect throwing money away. Also, it can be politically and technically expedient to provide incentives, even if it is not the theoretically most efficient use of that money. For example if it increases acceptance for renewables in the broader population or jump starts an industry (as it has in Germany).
      - opo 2y ago
        You don't need to use tentative phrases like "That might be the case", or "even if it is not theoretically most efficient use of that money". As the page on statista.com states: >Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings and nuclear power have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States. If not for federal and state subsidies, rooftop solar PV would come with a price tag between 117 and 282 U.S. dollars per megawatt hour. … https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-levelized-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us-by-technology/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz... It is understandable that anyone getting free money thinks it is good. But if the less well off people (renters, etc.) learn that they are paying more for power to subsidize wealthier residents (when that money could have gone a lot further if spent on other solar projects) - don't you think that might lower enthusiasm for government subsidizing the move away from fossil fuels? This sort of reverse Robin Hood policy hurts everyone in the long run.
        tfourb 2y ago
        Places outside the U.S. exist, you know? PV would be cost effective here in Germany for residential buildings even without incentives, though most owners would probably build smaller installations. And there are plenty of countries without government incentives where people still build PV. As for the renters: many of them currently have decided to buy small plug in PV sets, since their installation has been allowed under German law recently. No incentives for those, either. And I’ll repeat myself: incentives can have valuable political goals that have nothing to do with cost effective buildout of solar. In Germany, these incentives have contributed massively to improving popular sentiment towards PV and acceptance of government subsidies for renewables generally.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  That makes no sense to me. Roof space is unused (essentially free), and the panels shade the house making it more livable and efficient. Land you can use that is near your house is your yard- extremely valuable and expensive. Putting it elsewhere requires buying the electricity from someone else, all of the costs and losses of a power grid, and unreliability of a power grid. Installing a solar panel on a roof is not exactly expensive, complex, or difficult. Virtually every house in my neighborhood has them.
tfourb 2y ago
Writing from Germany, we have non-penetrative fasteners for basically all roof types common here. Maybe talk to some solar experts in your area, they might have an off the shelf solution that won't void warranties.
_yb2s 2y ago
I don't see how that could hod up in court unless the insurer could demonstrate that the panels were installed in a way that caused the damage... and in that case the installer would be liable

jillesvangurp 2y ago

That sounds a like a local problem; or maybe your roof is really that bad. In some parts of the world double digit percentages of houses now have solar panels on them. That's only going to go up.

beembeem 2y ago

I went through this for a commercial installation on a flat roof. As long as the roofer inspected the penetrations made by the installation, the roof warranty was fine. Of course, this roofer also had a business line for installing panels so they had expertise in the area. Voiding the warranty is not a universal argument.

tuna74 2y ago

TFA claims that it is idiotic to put solar panels on residential roofs, but them somewhere where installation cost are low instead, like on the ground or maybe factory roofs.

tfourb 2y ago
As someone with plenty of solar on my roof, it is anything but idiotic. With government incentives it pays for itself in ten years and has a realistic life span of 25. It might comparatively more efficient/cheaper per watt to build solar on the ground or on large commercial structures, but that doesn't change the economics for individual home owners, which in many parts of the world are already positive.
- opo 2y ago
  >... With government incentives… Money is fungible and not unlimited. A dollar given to you by your neighbors in their taxes to subsidize you would have gone much, much further if the money would have been spent to build solar by your power utility.
  - tfourb 2y ago
    That might be the case but the fact is that these incentives exist and eligible home owners that don’t use them are in effect throwing money away. Also, it can be politically and technically expedient to provide incentives, even if it is not the theoretically most efficient use of that money. For example if it increases acceptance for renewables in the broader population or jump starts an industry (as it has in Germany).
    - opo 2y ago
      You don't need to use tentative phrases like "That might be the case", or "even if it is not theoretically most efficient use of that money". As the page on statista.com states: >Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings and nuclear power have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States. If not for federal and state subsidies, rooftop solar PV would come with a price tag between 117 and 282 U.S. dollars per megawatt hour. … https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-levelized-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us-by-technology/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz... It is understandable that anyone getting free money thinks it is good. But if the less well off people (renters, etc.) learn that they are paying more for power to subsidize wealthier residents (when that money could have gone a lot further if spent on other solar projects) - don't you think that might lower enthusiasm for government subsidizing the move away from fossil fuels? This sort of reverse Robin Hood policy hurts everyone in the long run.
      - tfourb 2y ago
        Places outside the U.S. exist, you know? PV would be cost effective here in Germany for residential buildings even without incentives, though most owners would probably build smaller installations. And there are plenty of countries without government incentives where people still build PV. As for the renters: many of them currently have decided to buy small plug in PV sets, since their installation has been allowed under German law recently. No incentives for those, either. And I’ll repeat myself: incentives can have valuable political goals that have nothing to do with cost effective buildout of solar. In Germany, these incentives have contributed massively to improving popular sentiment towards PV and acceptance of government subsidies for renewables generally.
_yb2s 2y ago
That makes no sense to me. Roof space is unused (essentially free), and the panels shade the house making it more livable and efficient. Land you can use that is near your house is your yard- extremely valuable and expensive. Putting it elsewhere requires buying the electricity from someone else, all of the costs and losses of a power grid, and unreliability of a power grid. Installing a solar panel on a roof is not exactly expensive, complex, or difficult. Virtually every house in my neighborhood has them.

tfourb 2y ago

Writing from Germany, we have non-penetrative fasteners for basically all roof types common here. Maybe talk to some solar experts in your area, they might have an off the shelf solution that won't void warranties.

_yb2s 2y ago

I don't see how that could hod up in court unless the insurer could demonstrate that the panels were installed in a way that caused the damage... and in that case the installer would be liable