A short rant!
Why do people recommend solar energy for anyone but energy providers? The average solar panel system, for electricity, costs £15,000, and saves £100-£150 a year. They last approximately 25 years. If you get the best out of them, that's 25 * £150 = £3750 of saving. A loss of £11,250!
For heating it costs approximately £2500-£3000 to install, and saves £35-£50. At best, that's £50 * 25 = £1250 of savings. A loss of (AT BEST!) £1,250!
Combined, you're spending £17,500 just to make back £5,000, and that's if you keep them maintained and working for the whole 25 years max-life expectancy.
WHY? I would really appreciate any and all comments!
For heating it costs approximately £2500-£3000 to install, and saves £35-£50. At best, that's £50 * 25 = £1250 of savings. A loss of (AT BEST!) £1,250!
Combined, you're spending £17,500 just to make back £5,000, and that's if you keep them maintained and working for the whole 25 years max-life expectancy.
WHY? I would really appreciate any and all comments!
Posted by Ease on Thursday, January 22, 2009 06:17AM
- 14 comments
(link)
/
Keywords:
panel,
savings,
solar,
heating,
rant,
saving,
energy
Login to post a comment.
#14 Ease:
Vexonater wrote:
>You are a shitty human being if you consider ideas solely on their economic impact. If we did nothing but burn coal and oil, we'd be saving money for sure, but we'd be damaging the environment, and keep in mind, these resources are not renewable.
I was just taking this idea to the opposite extreme. He said only oil and coal, I pointed out the problem with only solar. I wasn't actually suggesting it... =P
Friday, January 23, 2009 09:58AM
#13 Disturbed Puppy:
Ease wrote:
> If everyone jumped straight to solar panels, and ceased burning coal and oil immediately the world would instantly grind to a stand still, hospitals would lose power, and people would die. Our world revolves around money, and ignoring that is idiocy. I fully support solar panels, and think as much research as possible should be put into them. Hence why I have attended a lecture, and have several more lectures lined up over the next few weeks.
That's not even possible. I don't think the suggestion(from any rational being) has been to switch to solely solar power right here and now. I know that back home there are several houses(as in three) that have solar panels on their house. I'm also pretty sure these people are eco-nazis, so there must be some financial benefits if you can afford the panels.
> I'd also like to add that we have little proof that the majority of them will last 25 years, and where will these HUGE panels of highly unrecyceable materials (ignoring the Organic panels being developed, that struggle to hit 2% efficiency) go? The rubbish heaps growing all over our planet. The race between running out of space, and running out of fossil fuels is a close one.
It's not that they're non-recyclable, it's just that it's no where near cost-effective to do something like that. And if people were a tad more eco friendly, this wouldn't be as big an issue as running out of fossil fuels. On another note, I think the US has coal for time more than long enough to come up with alternative fuels, where it's solar or something else. Oil is another story altogether, but oh well.
Friday, January 23, 2009 09:40AM
#12 Nadrew:
I have solar power whooped. That's all I'm gonna say.
Thursday, January 22, 2009 08:43PM
#11 Lummox JR:
Solar energy is a good idea in theory and is getting better as solar panel technology improves. (New materials are vastly increasing the efficiency of these things.) But until they're dirt cheap to buy and save a very great deal of money, they don't make a lot of sense for many people. That might vary a lot depending on geography, since as you pointed out you live in the cloud capital of the world. I know in the US there are many areas where solar panels actually do pay off, but for the most part that's only because of government subsidies offsetting the cost.
Solar panel research will continue regardless because there's money in finding new ways to improve the technology. I think that's great and I really do hope to see solar energy become cheap enough to make a dent in the world's power demands. But ignoring the economics of it would indeed be ridiculous.
Thursday, January 22, 2009 02:46PM
#10 Kalzar:
Disturbed Puppy wrote:
> I live in a dorm, I have no clue.
Yeah, I leave my lights, tv, and computer on all day. I don't give a fuck.
But, interesting note, that some solar power companies give you a nice rebate of I think 8,000 dollars per panel to try and encourage you to switch over.
Thursday, January 22, 2009 02:29PM
#9 Ease:
Jeff8500 wrote:
> Of course, where I live, you could never use solar panels because of how little sun we get.
Are you sure? I live in the U.K where we get notoriously little sunlight... just lots of cloudy days. Solar panels don't need direct sunlight; natural daylight is
sufficient.
Thursday, January 22, 2009 02:15PM
#8 Ease:
Vexonater wrote:
> Building off of Jeff's comment. You are a shitty human being if you consider ideas solely on their economic impact. If we did nothing but burn coal and oil, we'd be saving money for sure, but we'd be damaging the environment, and keep in mind, these resources are not renewable. The sun will be capable of providing us with energy for a few billion more years, so solar research is definitely a good way to go.
If everyone jumped straight to solar panels, and ceased burning coal and oil immediately the world would instantly grind to a stand still, hospitals would lose power, and people would die. Our world revolves around money, and ignoring that is idiocy. I fully support solar panels, and think as much research as possible should be put into them. Hence why I have attended a lecture, and have several more lectures lined up over the next few weeks.
"Building off of Jeff's comment. You are a shitty human being if you consider ideas solely on their economic impact." - great, good for you. Luckily for me I don't consider anything solely on economic impact.
I'd also like to add that we have little proof that the majority of them will last 25 years, and where will these HUGE panels of highly unrecyceable materials (ignoring the Organic panels being developed, that struggle to hit 2% efficiency) go? The rubbish heaps growing all over our planet. The race between running out of space, and running out of fossil fuels is a close one.
<Edit> Also, this post was MEANT to be thought/conflict provoking. I think the best solutions can be reached through conflict. If you disagree, great; if you found it interesting, even better. Feel free to "Yay +1" either way.
Thursday, January 22, 2009 02:09PM
#7 Vexonater:
Ease wrote:
> Uh huh, I attended a lecture, and put in a fair bit of research myself into Solar Panels because I want to completely disregard them and continue to burn away our precious fossil fuels...
>
> I'm just appalled at how much it costs to install a fairly simply set-up. Instead of paying for solar panels, people wanting to help should donate money for more research into the techonology! Surely it would do the world more good than the £150 of electricity the panels would save each year.
>
> Each year the sun radiates the earth with 10,000 times the energy needed to power everything. If we covered but 0.25% of the Earth's surface with 40% efficient panels then we'd be set for years! Then again, at £15,000 a house, 0.25% of the Earth would be an expensive project.
But the money IS going towards solar panel research. That's why these breakthroughs are coming as they are. The way your post is worded makes it seem like the price of solar panels makes their use indefensible.
Thursday, January 22, 2009 02:06PM
#6 Ease:
Uh huh, I attended a lecture, and put in a fair bit of research myself into Solar Panels because I want to completely disregard them and continue to burn away our precious fossil fuels...
I'm just appalled at how much it costs to install a fairly simply set-up. Instead of paying for solar panels, people wanting to help should donate money for more research into the techonology! Surely it would do the world more good than the £150 of electricity the panels would save each year.
Each year the sun radiates the earth with 10,000 times the energy needed to power everything. If we covered but 0.25% of the Earth's surface with 40% efficient panels then we'd be set for years! Then again, at £15,000 a house, 0.25% of the Earth would be an expensive project.
Thursday, January 22, 2009 02:03PM
#5 Vexonater:
Ease wrote:
> Okay, so by pure fluke I ended up at a Photonics lecture today. Current household solar panels vary between 5% and 12% efficiency. The 12% ones being the very very top of the market; equivalent to a Ferrari Enzo in the car world.
>
> However there have been recent breakthroughs reaching 25-27% and a theoretical 42% has been devised but not yet completed.
>
> On that train of thought, assuming (unwisely) that the 42% panels won't cost more than the 12% of today, they'll produce (very) approximately 4 times more energy. So if you were to multiply the savings by four, from £3750 you get £15,000.
>
> So, assuming they don't cost more, and they last the full 25 years, and you don't have to pay to maintain them, you will manage to break even EXACTLY on the year they are expected to cease functioning.
>
> I'm still not swayed!
Building off of Jeff's comment. You are a shitty human being if you consider ideas solely on their economic impact. If we did nothing but burn coal and oil, we'd be saving money for sure, but we'd be damaging the environment, and keep in mind, these resources are not renewable. The sun will be capable of providing us with energy for a few billion more years, so solar research is definitely a good way to go.
Thursday, January 22, 2009 02:01PM
#4 Jeff8500:
Ease wrote:
> Okay, so by pure fluke I ended up at a Photonics lecture today. Current household solar panels vary between 5% and 12% efficiency. The 12% ones being the very very top of the market; equivalent to a Ferrari Enzo in the car world.
>
> However there have been recent breakthroughs reaching 25-27% and a theoretical 42% has been devised but not yet completed.
>
> On that train of thought, assuming (unwisely) that the 42% panels won't cost more than the 12% of today, they'll produce (very) approximately 4 times more energy. So if you were to multiply the savings by four, from £3750 you get £15,000.
>
> So, assuming they don't cost more, and they last the full 25 years, and you don't have to pay to maintain them, you will manage to break even EXACTLY on the year they are expected to cease functioning.
>
> I'm still not swayed!
You're one of those, "coal is god, let's burn it," kind of people, aren't you? Think about the environment for a second! I mean, you aren't losing money, and you're helping the environment.
Of course, where I live, you could never use solar panels because of how little sun we get.
Thursday, January 22, 2009 01:55PM
#3 Ease:
Okay, so by pure fluke I ended up at a Photonics lecture today. Current household solar panels vary between 5% and 12% efficiency. The 12% ones being the very very top of the market; equivalent to a Ferrari Enzo in the car world.
However there have been recent breakthroughs reaching 25-27% and a theoretical 42% has been devised but not yet completed.
On that train of thought, assuming (unwisely) that the 42% panels won't cost more than the 12% of today, they'll produce (very) approximately 4 times more energy. So if you were to multiply the savings by four, from £3750 you get £15,000.
So, assuming they don't cost more, and they last the full 25 years, and you don't have to pay to maintain them, you will manage to break even EXACTLY on the year they are expected to cease functioning.
I'm still not swayed!
Thursday, January 22, 2009 01:45PM
#2 Mechana2412:
Solar panels are currently very inefficient, but they will be very profitable within the next few years because of how many breakthroughs there have been lately. Current Solar Panels turn a tiny percentage of light into energy- the rest is lost because of inefficiency.
Even so, it's better to kill a wallet than kill a planet.
Thursday, January 22, 2009 08:06AM
#1 Disturbed Puppy:
I live in a dorm, I have no clue.
Thursday, January 22, 2009 06:22AM