Topic: Solar panels set to be mandatory on all new buildings under EU plan (Read 1232 times)

Everything is quite simple - solar energy does not require (if we are talking about households) special conditions. It's about something - solar panels/ribbons can be added to existing objects. For example, houses, buildings. And they do not need a separate space, land, such as for wind farms. And they are very simple to implement, unlike wind or tidal stations. The ease of installation and operation, as well as the upgradability of the systems, is better than the listed alternatives. You can easily install solar chimes on a private house, in the yard, on an apartment building. This is one of the key advantages of this technology.

There is nothing wrong in using solar panels or encouraging people to install it. But the problem here is that the authorities are putting the burden on common people, instead of subsidizing the installation or making it free. Already in the EU zone, citizens are distraught due to rising retail inflation and fuel price rise. This is not the ideal situation to overburden them. And also, why prioritize solar panels over other renewable options? What is wrong with installing a mini wind turbine instead of solar panels?

I am sure that for Nigeria this is a VERY effective solution, because the number of sunny days and clear skies in Nigeria is more than in classical Europe, for example.
The state or private investors should consider building factories for the production of solar panels, tapes, which will not only be a project to supply the domestic market, but also to supply most of the African continent. Nigeria can benefit greatly from such a project!

Every country can mandate it, but it might also have some drawbacks in increasing the global temperature. I'm not sure of it, because if this has everything positive we could've seen more countries getting adopted to it. It has got more spending on initial setup, but the outcome is more productive and efficient.

If it hasn't got any drawbacks then it is pure politics, because of government can set solar units on every building then there won't be need of electricity consumption and production which will cut the market for electricity through which big corruption takes place.

Maybe, don't wait for your government to have this kind of initiative. As you said, you are blessed with so much sun, why not start with your own home, try a small solar set-up and see if you can benefit from it? Now, once your neighbors saw your small project, they may ask you about this. And if they see the benefits, they most likely will follow. You can start small and then, just add solar panels and other parts like batteries later on. If you will wait your government to this kind of initiative, you may be waiting for nothing.

To me, this is a welcome development and one that is long overdue, I hope my dear country, Nigeria can copy from this,  as this will go a long way in solving the power challenges that is currently ravaging almost every part of the country.,
It is quite disappointing as to how a country that's been so blessed with all manner of natural resources continue to suffer in lack and insufficiency due to ignorance and political greed, my country is a nation blessed with so much sun, as such, the idea of making solar energy mandatory in every building is a good initiative that will not only benefit the EU citizens alone, but will also be of great benefit to Nigeria if the government can take up the idea as well, this will at the least, solve 90 percent of the power instability in the country.

I agree, although I will make one reservation. Perhaps it is worth noting, as mentioned above, until this technology is suitable for industrial applications, such as in metallurgy, where electric melting furnaces operate, and similar solutions that require high power and current strength.
But for "civilian use" - for example, for a householder - these are quite suitable, affordable, and economically sound solutions. I am sure that in 3-5 years, the efficiency of solar panels and batteries for storing "reserves" of energy will increase markedly!


In fact, this is not a critical problem. Now power lines stretch for hundreds and even thousands of kilometers, and technological solutions can significantly reduce delivery costs. But I think that solar panels are unlikely to be implemented as giga-farms, for example, covering the entire desert part of northern Africa. They make sense, at least for today - local farms, at a distance of several hundred kilometers from the consumer.

Yes, very often we see reports of new discoveries and developments that make solar panels cheaper and more practical, and also increase their efficiency. This direction of alternative renewable energy sources is not only very promising for the inhabitants of the planet, but also necessary for widespread implementation, taking into account the current sharp climate change, caused, among other things, by the massive and uncontrolled consumption of coal, oil and gas.
[/quote]
There is a double urgency to transform Europe’s energy system: ending the EU’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels, which are used as an economic and political weapon and cost European taxpayers nearly €100 billion per year, and tackling the climate crisis,” the European Commission said in a statement earlier this week. Currently, 40% of the EU’s gas is imported from Russia at a cost of over USD$110 million a day. Following the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the European Commission is turbocharging their original green energy transition with the aim of producing nearly half of the bloc’s energy from renewables by 2030 – doubling the current amount.
This excerpt is from Olivia Lai in Earth.com. So like youve rightly said theres and urgency to minimize usage of oil and gas but theyre basically doing this to eradicate thier depencence on Russian gas supplies.

European countries have developed a program for the gradual transition from conventional energy sources to renewable sources of "green" energy, and this is the right and long overdue decision.
[/quote]
Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics....BYCHRISTINA NUNEZ NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC.
So we can see that solar panels also has its negative effects on the climate.

Honestly I wasn't expecting a marketing for a solar panel here, definitely was out of the blue. But the main problem with solar panels is not how strict they are or anything like that, it's transfer of energy and as long as that's not solved, we are going to keep coming back to the same conclusion.

Unless you plan on building wires from one place to another for miles which makes it quite difficult, then you have to find a way to get that energy from solar panels, and allow them to travel the world in a box or whatever and be easy to transfer. If you are doing it and then you have a big big loss of energy meanwhile, then that is the problem we are facing today and this doesn't solve that.

Yes, very often we see reports of new discoveries and developments that make solar panels cheaper and more practical, and also increase their efficiency. This direction of alternative renewable energy sources is not only very promising for the inhabitants of the planet, but also necessary for widespread implementation, taking into account the current sharp climate change, caused, among other things, by the massive and uncontrolled consumption of coal, oil and gas.
European countries have developed a program for the gradual transition from conventional energy sources to renewable sources of "green" energy, and this is the right and long overdue decision.

A new and promising technology, flexible solar panels. Advantages - there are no strict requirements for the mounting surface, convenience, convenient dimensions, a fairly good indicator of efficiency. While probably not the cheapest solution, but I think over time it will become much more affordable. Now, along with a hydro-thermal layer on the surface of buildings, an electrical generating layer can be applied! This solution is just right for large urban developments.
Happy viewing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9BRwVPLJOw

This weekend I've visited company that offers solar panels installment and maintenance and asked several questions. It turned out (maybe this is applicable only to my country) I cant switch off from local electricity lined completely. I still have to pay things like "Transmission and distribution services" and "Mandatory procurement component" (I dont know to translate it correctly, but I have this in my bill).

Either I did not understand fully what they said, but from what I understand is that I cant put a box in my garage that will store electricity. All the generated and unused energy I must transmit (sell) to local company, they will sell and send me money, but the amount will be lower than monthly my "Transmission and distribution services", because they sell it on auction (or market by market price to others), and charge me market price for service.

So far my vision is that solar panels are less profitable than I have expected. The real payback point is even larger than I have expected.

I absolutely agree that at this stage in the development of solar cell technology, for INDUSTRIAL use, this is not a suitable technology. Well, or for a very small range of tasks.

But they did not set a goal - to replace industrial nuclear power plants, which can generate a given amount of energy 24 * 7. But for households - the ideal solution for today. I hope to soon return to the construction of a country house, and yet I am implementing a model with a complete rejection of industrial electricity in it due to alternative energy sources.
Also, these solutions (solar energy) solve the issue of social needs quite well (for example, lighting of streets, houses, irrigation systems, etc.). There is also no need for 24 * 7 work, and energy consumption is not industrial scale. But all this together will give a fairly noticeable effect in terms of reducing the load on industrial stations, and reducing the cost of maintaining households.

A late step, but a good one anyway. The main problem, in my opinion, is the inability of these solar panels to meet the demand, and therefore power generators will not be completely dispensed with. In addition, the cost of installing these panels is relatively high compared to the benefit that will result from them. In my opinion, this decision is insufficient and requires a state support fund to be fully utilized.

Perhaps this is the first reasonable thought in your performance among the muddy streams of Russophobia and your usual nonsense. Congratulations, you are not hopeless.

Well depends, and you know it because we had this discussion a few months ago
I'm on the same page, as I still believe that solar panels for the industry are crap, but when it comes to households things change dramatically as :


the energy consumption during the night is below 20% of the average. So if you have a 10kwh consumption per 24h, then you will need only 2kwh worth of storage for each night, or...even better, let the grid that is already showing downtrends take care of it and balance.
For the industry, for countries that can't get more than 4 hours of sun on average is still crap.

Wind stations tend to be more reliable as wind patterns are far clearer but still lack the uptime needed, so again I don't think that any of those two are solutions on their own, the only clean solution is to use pump storage facilities, but even those are limited by geographical reasons.

So while I do believe solar will manage to make a dent in peak consumption and they are offering a solution for stuff that works during the day, like public service buildings that open at 11:58 and close at 11:59  with an afternoon break between, nuclear is the only choice of reliable 24/7 energy that can be used anywhere, literally anywhere! So don't give the Chornobyl reply on this, nor the 8grade Mercalli earthquake and tsunami of Fukushima since Germany has experienced the last major earthquake in 1756.

Sun and wind without a backup solution are not going to fix anything at a national scale, they still need a reliable continuous source, and that is only nuclear.
Of course, this doesn't mean I'm ok with burning gas for electricity, this is the worse compromise that leads nowhere in my opinion.

Not everyone has the goal of having a conceptual dialogue. Some want everyone to know that "solar panels are crap", and "expensive", that "wind stations prevent earthworms from sleeping", that tide stations ... tide stations .... Here's another propaganda of black slurry sellers, nothing came up with, but soon we will hear groans that "because of them, the Gulf Stream will break and everyone will freeze, so urgently buy gas only from us, and at $ 10,000,000 per cubic meter"

I think some sections of solar panels can be removed and replaced, but it will be need to remove whole panel from the roof and transport it, as I doubt that such replacement manipulations can be made on the roof and on the place. But I think then can withstand minor hailstorm, because while installing workers walk on them. In the internet I've found that "it’s best to avoid putting more than fifty pounds of weight on each square foot", so they are not as fragile as glass. I think a lot depends on a hailstorm, if the hail is the size of a baseball, then it sure will take some damage.

Its a really good move, we need to achieve global warming goals. Else the picture of global warming effects is really scary. However there is a need to make these panels hailstorm proof. I had few solar panels installed at my home, they got damaged in hailstorm. is there a way to make them work again?