Do you feel that we should all have solar panels on every house in the U.S? For climate change.?

Question

I know the cost is high right now. If we could get federal funding to help that would be great. I think it would be a small step in attacking climate change. I do think that it is a step in the right direction.

Answer 1

Nuclear power would have a greater impact to provide power with no co2.

Answer 2

That would be a great idea; unfortunately, it would probably be pretty expensive to have everyone buy them. I suppose the best plan would be to build them into all new houses, and that would eventually fix the problem, but it would take a long time for everybody to have one. But federal funding would probably pay off in the long run, because (as mentioned above) the grid is often near or at it's limits.

Solar panels would also not help some area, particularly the great Northwest. Our summers have become longer, but we still have 8 or so months of overcast skies (which often brings rain). However, if the government (federal & states) would all continue to endorse the "near-free" power (solar, hydro, and wind), we, or climate, our future, and our wallets would all feel a little bit better.

These won't solve all our problems, but it's a step in the right direction.

Answer 3

I think it's a great idea to get federal funding, that would be HUGE, and I think it would be a decent step in attacking climate change but I don't think everyone should be forced into it. I think there should be the usual incentives, like selling power back to the grid, and offered at an affordable cost or completely funded for those on extremely limited incomes and there should be plenty of information available to home owners about the benefits of solar energy. I think that would be more effective and better tolerated than forcing home owners to switch to solar panels. Still think it's a good idea though.

Answer 4

There is federal funding (and some States as well) via tax incentives.

We could do more, requiring power companies to buy excess electricity from solar systems (once again, some States do that), and to use time-of-day pricing in both directions.

The real solution will be cheaper panels, of course. People are working on that.

Answer 5

I live in tyhe UK and spent £5,000
fitting solar panels to my house withing 24 hours the solar panels drained my batteries but did manage to raise the outside temperature by 2 degrees

The following day the Department of the Enviroment sent me a summons for contributing to global warming.

Contributions are now being excepted to cover my £56,000 lawyers fees.

Does anyone want to buy some second hand solar panels?

Answer 6

I have Solar PV panels. I do not think there is one single fix to the problem even though i favor solar in many respects and apply it.

Not every building is properly situated to make it cost effective to apply solar, not every structure can have additions placed on the roof and not all PV collectors are equal. In fact a lot of new tech is common down the pike and worth paying attention to but Solar photovoltaics are still pretty expensive per watt of production at anywhere from $8 to 10$ per watt installed.

The way to apply what you are talking about with distributed power generation is valid technologically and to the respondent who advocates nuclear I suggest that building nuclear power plants doesn't fix the grid and a big part of the problem is the grid. I do think there is room for nuclear power too but it is not a solution by itself and it comes with its own set of risks and problems. Avoid comparing the two as they are not mutually exclusive.

What is needed is a grid-tie management system that is entry level and can be distributed to viable candidates at competitive cost. Distributed power generation would have the advantage of reducing transmission stresses for the entire grid making existing power generation more efficient in its distribution as well as generating a potentially significant amount of power by itself as a cumulative result.

Also do not look at this technology in terms of dependence on Federal subsidy, it must be economically viable on its own merits or all the grants in the world will not sustain the technology.

Solar technologies are ready for prime time but they also must be applied carefully so that many newbies to the possibility do not get burned by unscrupulous installers that are placing systems just anywhere to collect on the potential grant money at the consumer's expense.

Answer 7

The people ho lives in mountain or far away area use solar panels and even caravan.
So with this system you dont have to think more higher cost el.
But you must also have wind mill or bike crank system for extra energy.

Answer 8

No way, I live in Pittsburgh and have practically no sun here from October until April. We would have to use a different kind of power at least half of the year. Solar power would not be efficient here.

Answer 9

Makes more sense that the government building more coal and gas burning plants for electric generation, just to turn them over to "private" companies for cents on the dollar! They should give solar panels to taxpayers so they could generate their own power and sell the extra back to the same "private concerns!

Answer 10

That would be a good solution to reduce the nations dependency on fossil fuels and reduce atmospheric emissions of particulate matter, but there is no evidence to suggest it would have any detectable effect on climate.

Answer 11

That does sound like a good idea. However its the installation and amount of solar panels that would make it rough. good idea tho.