Rooftop Solar Panels Are Almost All Facing the Wrong Direction

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Are you a homeowner or business owner that has gone to the expense and trouble to install solar panels to help the environment and to cut your energy costs? Got them all correctly aligned to a southern exposure for maximum energy generation? According to the New York Times, you’re doing it all wrong. Go west, young man, Go west. :eek:

Some involve the difference between energy and power. The two terms are often used interchangeably, but they are distinct aspects of electricity.
Click to expand...
 
They are a stupid idea in general. Economy of scale with centralized power sources are far better, and the only reason rooftop solar panels exist is because everyone like myself who doesn't own one is buying them in part for the schmucks that do.
 
So are they basically saying that the power grid is under the most stress in the late afternoon into the evening after everyone gets home from work? Thus when the sun is more West the solar panels facing West will generate the most power? Kind of makes sense.
 
Skillz said:
So are they basically saying that the power grid is under the most stress in the late afternoon into the evening after everyone gets home from work? Thus when the sun is more West the solar panels facing West will generate the most power? Kind of makes sense.
Click to expand...
But the problem is, that is far from peak solar efficiency time. Really we need to restrict solar usage to locations near the equator to eliminate some seasonality concerns, and then have them at dedicated solar plants using cheap land that can store the energy in an efficient manner.

Some were saying that perhaps water pumps would be the way to go. Use solar all throughout the day to elevate water into a container, and then release it at peak usage as a supplement to reliable 24x7 power sources like clean coal and nuclear. Same thing perhaps with wind power.

The other alternative was to have a mirror array that is able to melt huge salt storage tanks, and the heat likewise can be used to generate electricity at peak hours. None of this is feasible on a small scale.
 
On some electricity plans, people pay more during peak hours and less during off-peak hours. Makes sense to use the same model for paying solar panel owners.
 
You really shouldn't be looking to make money with single-dwelling rooftop panels. Set a goal to reduce/eliminate your own electric bill.. the rest is gravy.
 
hellokeith said:
You really shouldn't be looking to make money with single-dwelling rooftop panels. Set a goal to reduce/eliminate your own electric bill.. the rest is gravy.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, that's certainly why I put them there. One of up front capital expense that will reduce the on cost of living going forward.
 
The amount of solar power hitting the earth daily is what 10,000x (or 10,000,000x) the total daily energy output of all the earth power plants. Solar is the future. Maybe not in the next 5 or 10 years but long term it is. Maybe a stopgap until fusion power is mainstream next century.

Anyways...

Question for those that have solar on their roofs: Aren't most home/residential solar installations hooked into the power grid is such a way that if the grid goes down the solar panels stop producing power and the homeowner is SOL anyways? Seems some people caught in Hurricane Sandy had that problem? Are solar households really that independent from the grid?
 
kindasmart said:
The amount of solar power hitting the earth daily is what 10,000x (or 10,000,000x) the total daily energy output of all the earth power plants.
Click to expand...
Completely irrelevant, since you can't inexpensively cover any significant landmass with solar power, solar power is seasonally, geographically, and of course hourly inconsistent, and you have to have an economical means of storing the energy.

Solar panels also only around 10% efficient, and the amount of solar energy released by the sun on any square foot is extremely small. The only reason the solar output on a global scale seems so massive, is that the footprint of the earth (including the oceans) is so large.

So until you can find a cheap way of covering a very large area with more efficient solar panels and store that energy for when you need it, its a shitty unreliable solution.
 
Ducman69 said:
They are a stupid idea in general. Economy of scale with centralized power sources are far better, and the only reason rooftop solar panels exist is because everyone like myself who doesn't own one is buying them in part for the schmucks that do.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that doesn't make them the schmucks.
 
Any small array I have seen around here are on motors and move with the sun..
For rural areas anyway, solar can make a lot of sense when you're talking residential homes.
If you don't want to feed the grid, a few panels and batteries dedicated to your lights and small appliances but then leave the heavy hitters (water heater, fridge, PC) for the grid to handle. Even though you can heat water with solar as well, even in winter. Dump any extra heat into a radiator and then you have warm air in winter too.
At least that is what I would do if I could front the cash for panels.
 
Well the west thing is wrong too in order to capture the most you would need a large arm that holds the array and sits above the hose with the panels able to rotate from 0* to 180* to have the panels follow the full movement of the sun. Dependent on the location on the earth the angle would need to be adjusted.
 
The idea behind this is simple.

Have the panels facing the sun directly when they're used the most. This means facing them West for when the Sun is in the West side of the sky since most people use more electricity from around 3P until they go to bed.

Overall it's less efficient since the panels can make more power during mid day when the sun is directly overhead, but since most of that power is wasted/lost due to the lack of being able to store it, it makes more sense to make the panels more efficient when they're being used.

Now only if we could make use the sunlight reflected off the moon...
 
Hyundai-260-Watt This is the first one I found with an efficiency rating, but I'm sure it's not uncommon to be above 15% for consumer grade panels.

Some inverters can use the grid and batteries to provide backup in case of a power outage. Sunny Island inverters from SMA do that.

I don't own solar. I have crappy circumstances with my current house. Otherwise, I would have at least 4 large panels and micro-inverters. Panels can also be ground mounted and pole mounted. They don't have to go on your roof.

I don't understand why anyone would poo-poo solar. Anything to get us away from middle east oil, or at least lessen our dependence. The tax breaks? Really? After millions have been wasted on other far more stupid things? Bah.
 
Poseur said:
Hyundai-260-Watt This is the first one I found with an efficiency rating, but I'm sure it's not uncommon to be above 15% for consumer grade panels.

Some inverters can use the grid and batteries to provide backup in case of a power outage. Sunny Island inverters from SMA do that.

I don't own solar. I have crappy circumstances with my current house. Otherwise, I would have at least 4 large panels and micro-inverters. Panels can also be ground mounted and pole mounted. They don't have to go on your roof.

I don't understand why anyone would poo-poo solar. Anything to get us away from middle east oil, or at least lessen our dependence. The tax breaks? Really? After millions have been wasted on other far more stupid things? Bah.
Click to expand...

When you take into account the expensive rare earth metals needed to make them (thanks China), and the carbon footprint of the manufacturing process, they are a wash at best for *MOST* residential installations..

I would much rather shut down a ton of the remaining coal fired plants we have and go with modern (last 10-20 year) designed Nuclear powered plants. If the Government were to stay on the private companies when it comes to safety and give them insane fines that cannot be passed onto the customer (in lieu of wrist slaps), then they would be just fine..

Look how many nuclear powered warships we currently sail..They are functioning in the WORST POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENT on Earth. If the French can do it....
 
Poseur said:
I don't understand why anyone would poo-poo solar. Anything to get us away from middle east oil, or at least lessen our dependence. The tax breaks? Really? After millions have been wasted on other far more stupid things? Bah.
Click to expand...
Middle east oil, seriously? We get our electricity primarily from clean-coal, natural gas, nuclear power, and lastly wind. At least in Texas, solar and hydro make up virtually nothing, and certainly no oil burning power stations. Oil is used for cars, but overall most doesn't come from the middle-east, only about a 1/4, when a full 1/3rd actually comes from Canada alone. Fun fact is that by the end of the year, we will be producing as much oil per day as we ever have in the history of the United States (9.6 billion barrels/day). Which is kind of funny since old projections said we should have run out by now and predicted peak oil, lol!

In any case, we have metric craptons of domestically available natural gas (very clean), coal (can be clean, but somewhat expensive to make clean coal if you also require carbon sequestration), nuclear is really crap since we refuse to recycle like France does but we have quite a bit and can build more, and 8% wind which is probably close to the max you can go on your grid since its an intermittent power source you can't always rely on for consistent output.

There has never been a need to burn oil for electricity.
 
I read an article that stated the cost of solar panels and the savings from energy that by the time you pay them off they are no longer viable [20 year lifespan] thus you only break even and don't really save much at all cost wise.
 
ccityinstaller said:
I would much rather shut down a ton of the remaining coal fired plants we have and go with modern (last 10-20 year) designed Nuclear powered plants.
Click to expand...
And what are you going to do with the abundance of domestic coal that the United States has? And you can make clean-coal plants BTW, yes they cost a bit more, but its still less expensive than nuclear when all is said and done. It not only tackles the known harmful emissions as has been done for many years, but the generally harmless but abundant C02 (greenhouse) output is mitigated by turning it into a compressed liquid and pumping it deep underground. Its perfect in Texas where we have tons of clay layers.

Only big question is whether or not shale gas is cheaper, as that's already very low emissions.
 
ep0x73 said:
I read an article that stated the cost of solar panels and the savings from energy that by the time you pay them off they are no longer viable [20 year lifespan] thus you only break even and don't really save much at all cost wise.
Click to expand...
I've seen this stated many times myself. Not sure if anything has changed much either. They just haven't been efficient enough yet to have a great ROI. They're mainly for people that have the money and want them in case the grid goes down (grid-tied).

If I could, I'd probably opt for a wind turbine instead. They seem to produce a lot more power, then I'd just have to have a basement full of batteries to store the energy = $$$$$.
 
Ducman69 said:
It not only tackles the known harmful emissions as has been done for many years, but the generally harmless but abundant C02 (greenhouse) output is mitigated by turning it into a compressed liquid and pumping it deep underground. Its perfect in Texas where we have tons of clay layers.
Click to expand...

What could possibly go wrong, right?
 
ep0x73 said:
I read an article that stated the cost of solar panels and the savings from energy that by the time you pay them off they are no longer viable [20 year lifespan] thus you only break even and don't really save much at all cost wise.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the states costs are like for an initial out lay but down here in Australia my 3KW system cost $5500, the annual savings bill wise should sit around $1000 (and it's not like the juice is getting any cheaper). On top of that it's not really a lost amount of money since you increase the asset value of the property having them installed, you just transferring some liquidity.
 
Skillz said:
So are they basically saying that the power grid is under the most stress in the late afternoon into the evening after everyone gets home from work? Thus when the sun is more West the solar panels facing West will generate the most power? Kind of makes sense.
Click to expand...
Does make sense, but like the article states solar panel owners are credited for the total power they create, not for peak power usage of all the power grids companies. And since the power company isn't who paid for my solar panels they can piss off for getting peak power.

ep0x73 said:
I read an article that stated the cost of solar panels and the savings from energy that by the time you pay them off they are no longer viable [20 year lifespan] thus you only break even and don't really save much at all cost wise.
Click to expand...
Depends how slanted the article was. Going completely out of pocket you can definitely hit breakeven given the right conditions. How much work would you be willing to do for yourself? Who did the article choose for cost of installation? There are also various levels of price increase since cost doesn't scale linearly you put one more panel and it costs significantly more due to an extra inverter. What local price of electricity are they using? Cheapest in the country? Or more expensive states?

Also every major solar panel out there will be more than viable at 20 years, most will give more than 80% effectiveness at 20 years. If anything the electronics of it, inverters, will be what need to be replaced sooner.
 
It isn't feasible everywhere, I would love to know how durable the panels are against golf ball sized hail and 60+ mph wind I see on an annual basis. Likewise I would love to know how effective they are in a place like Seattle where it's cloudy most of the time. I think the future is with nuke plants that can't melt down and don't produce fissible materials as a waste product. At least until we figure out fusion.
 
Best bet is to have them rotate based on the sun's position. If I had the land space that's probably what I'd do.
 
From the guy I talked to about solar.. you can have on grid and off grid systems. On grid, it is tied to the grid and if you over produce the electric company has to buy it back. Off grid, you store energy and use what you produce too.
 
ep0x73 said:
I read an article that stated the cost of solar panels and the savings from energy that by the time you pay them off they are no longer viable [20 year lifespan] thus you only break even and don't really save much at all cost wise.
Click to expand...

Really depends on your cost of electricity.
If you are only paying 8-12 cent/kw then you will probably never break even.

Out here in Southern California, we get called all the time from companies wanting to sell us solar panels.
They generally won't bother trying to sell you on solar unless your average electric bill is over $150/month. Even then their calculations are biased as they leave out some of the long term costs. Really only makes sense if you are paying $200+

We have tiered rates out here, that go as high as $.34 /kwh. Easy to hit $200-$300 during a hot summer month.

I generally don't hit that rate except during a few months in the summer. I could justify the cost of panels during July-Sept, but they would be a waste the other 9 months.
 
Kor said:
I don't know what the states costs are like for an initial out lay but down here in Australia my 3KW system cost $5500, the annual savings bill wise should sit around $1000 (and it's not like the juice is getting any cheaper). On top of that it's not really a lost amount of money since you increase the asset value of the property having them installed, you just transferring some liquidity.
Click to expand...
Was the cost really $5500, or was it $10,000 in equipment and after neighbors fronted taxes it came out to $5500 for you? The other confusing thing, is that my electricity bill for a 2100 sqft home is around $100 a month on average in hot-ass Texas (less in winter obviously), so to reduce $1000 from my annual bill would mean I was almost entirely self-sufficient on power with solar, which is implausible.

Also remember that saving energy is often even better than producing additional energy, in the form of inexpensive insulation. For example, just putting in blinds that are mostly closed, and then outside my home for the long wall that's primarily glass having my drop down solar shade outside (blocks 98% of UV/heat) saves a ton. And when not home my thermostat goes to 80oF, then cools down to 76oF when I'm in. Granted being a 2012 construction, it does have the more modern insulation than some homes.
 
Ducman69 said:
Was the cost really $5500, or was it $10,000 in equipment and after neighbors fronted taxes it came out to $5500 for you? The other confusing thing, is that my electricity bill for a 2100 sqft home is around $100 a month on average in hot-ass Texas (less in winter obviously), so to reduce $1000 from my annual bill would mean I was almost entirely self-sufficient on power with solar, which is implausible.

Also remember that saving energy is often even better than producing additional energy, in the form of inexpensive insulation. For example, just putting in blinds that are mostly closed, and then outside my home for the long wall that's primarily glass having my drop down solar shade outside (blocks 98% of UV/heat) saves a ton. And when not home my thermostat goes to 80oF, then cools down to 76oF when I'm in. Granted being a 2012 construction, it does have the more modern insulation than some homes.
Click to expand...

US power is considerably cheaper, your cost savings would need to be calculated on your existing rates.

My house was built in the early 90's, I'm trying to bring up the efficiency as I go along (having it re-insulated is next on the list). I installed the juice first because the sooner it's in the sooner it can start to reap the benefits. The actual cost of the equipment was something like $8500 before the sale of the STC's that were claimed for my house as part of the SRES.
 
Small solar panels for individual homes is fine. I hate the huge solar arrays they're building in the desert, and I absolutely despise wind farms. Both are bird killers, and wind farms are also bat killers. The large reflector arrays cook anything that flies over them, and both screw up natural wind patterns. The wind farms also create horrible noise. They're unsafe for wildlife and are not so "green" as they're portrayed.
 
Phoenix333 said:
Small solar panels for individual homes is fine. I hate the huge solar arrays they're building in the desert, and I absolutely despise wind farms. Both are bird killers, and wind farms are also bat killers. The large reflector arrays cook anything that flies over them, and both screw up natural wind patterns. The wind farms also create horrible noise. They're unsafe for wildlife and are not so "green" as they're portrayed.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that wind farms are mostly BS. The reason has nothing to do with killing birds and bats FFS. Domestic cats and fleas kill more birds and bats than wind farms do. By a lot.

The problem is the maintenance cost of the wind farms is to high for them to be sustainable. The large solar arrays being built now, don't even use photovoltaics. They are solar heat based and many times easier and cheaper to maintain. They also produce more power and have thermal storage to keep the plant running long past peak energy usage. They don't cook everything that flies over them either. They cook whatever flies in-between close to the collector. Since animals can feel, and in some cases, see that radiant heat, they don't fly there.

While we are on the topic of things we hate. I hate ignorance mostly.

We should have been using thorium reactors for at least twenty years now. Cheap, abundant, and clean energy is not a pipe dream. It just doesn't produce matter that can be used to make bombs and tip tank shells.
 
BallerX said:
I don't disagree that wind farms are mostly BS. The reason has nothing to do with killing birds and bats FFS. Domestic cats and fleas kill more birds and bats than wind farms do. By a lot.

The problem is the maintenance cost of the wind farms is to high for them to be sustainable. The large solar arrays being built now, don't even use photovoltaics. They are solar heat based and many times easier and cheaper to maintain. They also produce more power and have thermal storage to keep the plant running long past peak energy usage. They don't cook everything that flies over them either. They cook whatever flies in-between close to the collector. Since animals can feel, and in some cases, see that radiant heat, they don't fly there.

While we are on the topic of things we hate. I hate ignorance mostly.

We should have been using thorium reactors for at least twenty years now. Cheap, abundant, and clean energy is not a pipe dream. It just doesn't produce matter that can be used to make bombs and tip tank shells
Click to expand...
The solar furnaces create a bright light at the focal point which draws bugs like a beacon for quite an area. The the bug draw the birds into proximity of the host point.

Although these might not be big deals, if it was oil wells that were killing birds like this, groups would be up in the company's grill about it. If there was a slightest chances one of those birds was endangered, the endangered species act would be employed to shut it down. But these 'green' en devours get a pass. Aside from the disturbing tolerance of unequal application of the law (or regulations) the hypocrisy is palpable.
 
jpm100 said:
The solar furnaces create a bright light at the focal point which draws bugs like a beacon for quite an area. The the bug draw the birds into proximity of the host point.

Although these might not be big deals, if it was oil wells that were killing birds like this, groups would be up in the company's grill about it. If there was a slightest chances one of those birds was endangered, the endangered species act would be employed to shut it down. But these 'green' en devours get a pass. Aside from the disturbing tolerance of unequal application of the law (or regulations) the hypocrisy is palpable.
Click to expand...

I think you might be thinking bugs at night.

Oil kills everything, so there.

The article is non-sense.
It dismisses the fact that many solar systems might not produce enough at any point to sell energy.
Also it matters not when the cut occurs, the bigger it is the better. The rest are problems of inefficiency elsewhere that need to be fixed.
 
Ducman69 said:
Completely irrelevant, since you can't inexpensively cover any significant landmass with solar power, solar power is seasonally, geographically, and of course hourly inconsistent, and you have to have an economical means of storing the energy.

Solar panels also only around 10% efficient, and the amount of solar energy released by the sun on any square foot is extremely small. The only reason the solar output on a global scale seems so massive, is that the footprint of the earth (including the oceans) is so large.

So until you can find a cheap way of covering a very large area with more efficient solar panels and store that energy for when you need it, its a shitty unreliable solution.
Click to expand...

Well, I have been reading a bit about this. Apparently you can still get a good amount of power through the winter, in fact, cold temps help the panels efficiency, even snow covered they work.
Also, yeah, storage is a problem, but pumping it back into the grid is not. Of course at some point, power companies could stop allowing people to feed the grid for credit.

If I could do it myself cheaply I would do it in a second. Would be nice to get a electric bill under 100$
 
HardUp4HardWare said:
Also, yeah, storage is a problem, but pumping it back into the grid is not. Of course at some point, power companies could stop allowing people to feed the grid for credit.
Click to expand...

As it is sits Federal Law requires the Power Company to even the tiniest trickle fed back into the grid for a certain rate..Some of my dad's relatives own a huge farm in ID (IIRC) and they actually turn a nice profit, yes a profit, from the amount of power they produce and sell back since they aren't using it.
 
The only way solar can overcome all of the limitations on the medium is for the installations to be space based. In low level geosync orbits that either beam their power to the ground in the form of a laser or with electrified space elevators. We will likely develop fusion power or be very close to developing it by the time a viable space elevator is created. Since launching massive solar arrays into space is way to expensive we will have to lift them via space elevators.
 
Salesmen keep trying to sell us solar panels where I work, but our roof collects 5 or 6 bullet holes a year (at least the ones that we notice causing leaks). I don't think we want to replace expensive solar panels every single year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top