3 ms·

> Also, in almost all cases, the home installation doesn’t have enough battery power to actually last through inclement weather That's true today, but I bet i

> Also, in almost all cases, the home installation doesn’t have enough battery power to actually last through inclement weather That's true today, but I bet it won't be in 5 years time. Around this year or last year batteries have hit a price point where they make financial sense for ordinary people, and in a couple of years you'd be mad not to have them if you have rooftop (and somewhere to put the batteries of course). > Any subsidies for solar power should go to utility grade solar. At this point, it should probably go towards storage, grid capacity, or things like EV charging infrastructure. Solar generation doesn't need it. > The consumer rooftop solar cost is usually one of the most expensive ways you can generate electricity This may well be true, but there are positive externalities: - It has reduced land use compared to other energy generation methods - Power is produced near the point of use, reducing transmission requirements - Most of the cost is labour for installation which creates jobs Given that rooftop solar usually pays for itself despite being less cost-efficient that other forms of solar, I see no reason to discourage it.

matthewdgreen 1y ago
All new construction should have it, at least. The cost differential for building a new home's roof and outfitting that roof with solar just isn't high enough to justify doing it differently. Plus it improves cooling/heating costs and protects the roofing materials from direct sunlight.
- opo 1y ago
  >All new construction should have it, at least. Yea, I have never actually seen any estimates of the cost when adding panels to new construction, but it sure seems like a reasonable idea.
opo 1y ago
>...Around this year or last year batteries have hit a price point where they make financial sense for ordinary people, The LCOE of battery systems for residential systems is still incredibly high according to the Lazard report - an unsubsidized cost maybe 3 - 10 times more expensive than grid batteries. >...Given that rooftop solar usually pays for itself despite being less cost-efficient that other forms of solar, If that is the case, then less well off rate payers shouldn't have to subsidize their wealthier neighbors. If it does require subsidies, then that money should go to where it will do the most good in decarbonizing the grid - not as a giveaway to wealthier home owners. >I see no reason to discourage it. Who said anything about discouraging it? I certainly wouldn't want to discourage it.

matthewdgreen 1y ago

All new construction should have it, at least. The cost differential for building a new home's roof and outfitting that roof with solar just isn't high enough to justify doing it differently. Plus it improves cooling/heating costs and protects the roofing materials from direct sunlight.

opo 1y ago
>All new construction should have it, at least. Yea, I have never actually seen any estimates of the cost when adding panels to new construction, but it sure seems like a reasonable idea.

opo 1y ago

>...Around this year or last year batteries have hit a price point where they make financial sense for ordinary people, The LCOE of battery systems for residential systems is still incredibly high according to the Lazard report - an unsubsidized cost maybe 3 - 10 times more expensive than grid batteries. >...Given that rooftop solar usually pays for itself despite being less cost-efficient that other forms of solar, If that is the case, then less well off rate payers shouldn't have to subsidize their wealthier neighbors. If it does require subsidies, then that money should go to where it will do the most good in decarbonizing the grid - not as a giveaway to wealthier home owners. >I see no reason to discourage it. Who said anything about discouraging it? I certainly wouldn't want to discourage it.