StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
That's the first problem. Solar is almost never practical. I spend less than $2k/year on electricity and it would cost me about 44k (I priced it out) to put enough solar panels on my roof to pay for that. Given that within 40 years the panels have to be replaced, the ROI is in fact indefinite; they'd never pay for themselves, ever.Have those people, at a lower wage, install American made solar panels on all government building that receive enough sunlight every year to make it practical.
I'm guessing money is much better spent going into new powerplants, be they wind (or even a solar farm where the sun is bright most of the year), tidal, or whatever. Putting solar panels on individual buildings is nothing more than a gimick at the moment, from a cost-cutting or practicality standpoint (notwithstanding a cottage off the grid in the middle of nowhere).
For me personally, if solar came down in cost by 75%, I'd look at it. I I could rig my entire house up, including batteries, with a mostly maintenance-free setup, for $10,000, I'd do it. Even if it was $15,000 I'd think about it, as there is a definite ultimate return on that investment. I think it will be many years before that's possible, though. I can't do wind as it's too ugly for most people to tolerate. If it is law that power returned to the grid is given back to owners as a credit (I know it's possible in at least some areas), that would alleviate the need for batteries, as people could essentially use the power grid as a battery, taking from it at night time and putting back into it during the day while at work.