So it looks like those so-called environmental Solar Panels mean higher voltage, raising bills, destroying appliances, etc.

Hayduke wrote:

I believe it’s called pandering to the base..... some groups do it better than others

Indeed, the rent-seeking class of so-called enviros have alternately been for/against: hydro, nuclear, "clean" coal (whatever that meant), and a whole host of others, likely ultimately dependent on who ended up with the loot. Falling in with politicians was one of the worst decisions the Earth First crowd made. Either be pure, or don't be.

There are definitely issues in the transition to solar power with regard to the grid's ability to handle all that extra energy during the day and the lack of that energy at night or in bad weather. However, wasting solar energy is not nearly as bad as wasting energy from coal power plants. First, if it is rooftop solar, you're probably paying nothing for the power, or very little, other than paying off your investment. Second, it is not polluting at all. I'd 100% take some shortening of appliance life and some waste of energy in return for clean air and water. We all breathe the air and it is no fun at all to run in polluted areas or to have 25-30% of kids with asthma and other breathing problems created or worsened by air pollution. How could an athlete possibly want polluted air? Who would want to pay for dirty power when they could get clean power for a fraction of the amount?

joedirt wrote:

Amps Kill wrote:

Idiot. Volts are meaningless. Watts are what equipment uses. Amps will kill you. A stun gun can be 50,000 volts and it will not kill you if you are stun-gunned.

When your supply voltage is 10% higher than design, your wattage draw of your inductive and resistive loads (fans, ac units, certain types of lighting, etc.) increases by 21% (V^2)/Z. This produces extra heat and can shorten the life of your equipment.

Current flow is limited by something called a circuit breaker.

Solar panels are the salvation of our planet. They are an environmentally friendly, safe alternative. In the process of operation of solar panels, there is no organic fuel, so there are no harmful emissions into the atmosphere. Don't underestimate their importance. For example, I installed solar panels 2 years ago and this was the best solution because now I not only protect our planet but also save money for electricity. I believe that soon the whole world will switch to solar panels. By the way, those who are already looking for a company, which will be able to install solar panels I advise these guys https://www.solarsamui2020.com/. They are professionals in their field.

Wind turbine wrote:

This thread is pathetic. In every sense. This is letsrun, not Australia.

At least the thread produced this great post.

The issue this brings out in the open is that power forecasters have a hard time balancing out the grid to account for the relatively small amount of power produced by rooftop solar installations, so rather than truly saving energy, what ends up happening is they end up increasing the local voltage, causing everyone else's power consumption in their neighborhood to increase. As a for instance, lets say the power company's day ahead forecasters are supplying enough current to a neighborhood through it's substation to maintain 120 volts in a neighborhood, but because 5% of the houses have solar on them (that sometimes produces power and sometimes doesn't depending on clouds, etc.) the actual voltage ends up wavering between 124-126 volts. Now, they have to supply enough to maintain the 120, so what ends up happening is that additional current generated by the solar increases the local voltage which causes lamps to burn a little brighter, motors to run a little hotter because of the higher supply voltage. So while the house with the solar may have a lower power bill, every other house in the neighborhood will have a higher electric bill because the higher supply voltage just causes all the other neighbors to use more energy. The higher supply voltage (while typically withing the +10% threshold) will still shorten the life of electronics, motors, etc. due to the additional heat produced. In electronics, if you increase the temperature by 10%, you typically shorten the life by 50% (some electronics have what is known as an active front end on their power supply that will compensate for variations in supply voltage on the secondary supply that they are providing, but they are more of the exception than the rule).

I am all for alternative energy sources. Make them safe, efficient, and affordable. Test and retest. Mass produce the product. In the meantime, we should keep using fossil fuels.

Could you tell me some more information about it? Let’s talk in PM

The topic of this topic is quite controversial. Are you seriously citing all that and emphasizing the negative factors? Maybe, yes, I'm not arguing, there are downsides everywhere, but on a global scale, solar panels are beneficial. We have to be rational and sensible with our planet; otherwise, there will be a catastrophe in a couple of decades. By giving preference to renewable energy, you save our natural resources. Plus, some energy companies have gone even further: some offer the opportunity to participate in some kind of charity. For example, here: https://liedetectors-uk.com/octopus-energy-referral-code. You kill two birds with one stone.

Don't go into STEM, pls wrote:

230V wrote:

Australia runs on 230V +10%/−6%. So, the 254V someone is complaining about is within range.

Math fail.

230V +10% = 253V

253 < 254, thus NOT "within range"

You forgot the measuring device inaccuracy. Electricity measuring devices are not ± 0% accuracy.

Hmm...I should think about your suggestion! I want to add that solar panels, which convert the sun's energy into electrical energy, are primary renewable energy sources, including windmills and watermills. Unlike burning fossil fuels, such energy sources do not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, but the emission of harmful substances accompanies the manufacture of solar panels. I plan to install 50 of them in my backyard, so I don't have to pay any more for electricity. I can not install so many myself; I think to use additional help https://www.jackcliffelectrical.com.au/solar/

If little baby Jesus wanted us to have solar and wind and clean energy he wouldnta killt off all them dinosours 3000 years ago. He wouldnta gave us drillin rigs to get that their oil for are F350s.

solar = comminism

Solar power is the best thing we have today. It is a great energy source. Even though they are hard to find, solar panels and the electrical current they produce are amazing to use today. Solar panels are very useful in our daily life and can be used in many different ways. I've read some solar energy faqs from where I understood that Solar panels are made of several solar cells that collect light energy directly from the sun. The sunlight strikes the semiconducting material and knocks electrons loose, allowing them to flow freely.

But they do. Are the materials used to manufacture them mined and transported by renewable sources too? Same goes for the batteries if you're using those.

So much of the "renewable" concept involves hiding the fossil fuel use where the end user can't see it. Where's the full account? Until we see it, who knows if it's more or less? Who knows if fossil fuel use will be changed at all?

As sure as people will downvote this post, nobody will show up with this proof either. How do you know the renewable industry isn't overall carbon-positive?

^ how to snarkily say "I don't know."

and ditch google, kid. There's more you don't know here than you realize.

Don't forget there's also the questions of

) whether estimated emissions rates from solar will hold up if and when it ever reaches the lofty target of 54 billion solar photovoltaic cells in use

link.springer.com

CO2 emissions from renewables: solar pv, hydrothermal and EGS sources - Geomechanics and Geophysics for Geo-Energy and Geo-Resources

Geothermal and solar pv are future energy sources, as both these renewables draw energy from natural heat sources i.e. the Earth and the Sun. While geothermal energy utilizes Earth’s heat for power generation and for direct a...

Link:link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s409...

) whether fossil fuel use would diminish in any case.

History argues against the latter. The fuel-efficient cars developed during the 1970s embargo didn't result in less fuel used overall; on the contrary people drove more often once that crisis abated. Likewise, in a free market, a new energy source will merely increase the overall energy supply and potentially cause a new phase of high industrial growth. Bigger cities, more roads, more traffic. More roads means more oil products. More buildings means more steel means more coal. Look at the big picture.

I know this will upset a lot of virtuous people. But if you're so virtuous, why are you trying to keep all your precious toys? If you're a real eco-hero, just take yourself off the power-using grid as much as possible. "Alternative" energy is the bougie way; just use less. You can do it!

I'm virtuous enough because I run to and from work. My city and state have decided to make no trains or even buses available for this popular destination, so instead of joining the masses sitting in their cars, I run and get in 15-20 miles a day, depending on the route. As for solar, I'd have it up already if it weren't so expensive (and I'm not willing to lease the system). They really should up the incentives in a mass jobs program to get solar installed in tens of millions more homes rapidly. Less dependence on coal means cleaner air and a healthier populace.

Here's your evidence:

"Building solar, wind or nuclear plants creates an insignificant carbon footprint compared with savings from avoiding fossil fuels, a new study suggests.
The research, published in Nature Energy, measures the full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of a range of sources of electricity out to 2050. It shows that the carbon footprint of solar, wind and nuclear power are many times lower than coal or gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS). This remains true after accounting for emissions during manufacture, construction and fuel supply.
“There was a concern that it is a lot harder than suggested by energy scenario models to achieve climate targets, because of the energy required to produce wind turbines and solar panels and associated emissions,” explains project leader Dr Gunnar Luderer, who is an energy system analyst at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research (PIK).
Luderer tells Carbon Brief: “The most important finding [of our research] was that the expansion of wind and solar power…comes with life-cycle emissions that are much smaller than the remaining emissions from existing fossil power plants, before they can finally be decommissioned.”

carbonbrief.org

Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds

Simon Evans

Building solar, wind or nuclear plants creates an insignificant carbon footprint compared with savings from avoiding fossil fuels, a new study suggests.

Link:www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear...

By 2040, most of the coal fired power plants will be history here in NSW, Australia. The biggest will be closing in 2025, and 7 others of the 16 on national grid by 2035, last one in 2051.

The only pressure here is the market, and viability of them in the future