Topic: Solar panels set to be mandatory on all new buildings under EU plan - page 5. (Read 1179 times)

It's something I was always shouting for, I live in Greece and it would be a great opportunity for homeowners to adopt such an innovation. Personally, at my parental home we have plenty of space in our rooftop, offering great sunlight coverage. If we had invested in something like this, our house could easily be self-sustained and not pay a single dime for electricity.

Solar panels are expensive, but in cases like mine, they'd pay off really quick, achieving ROI in just a few years.

Each and every step taken forward by the European Union is the outcome of the unexpected shut down of oil supply. Already different European countries have made different plans to fulfill the power needs. Also European countries doesn't want to depend on Russia in any means. There used to be major power loss during the transmission and when solar panels were placed over every new building it'll be necessary for self need.

For countries like Norway and Iceland usage of solar energy generation will help at least for some time period during the specific season. During this time period India have profited big out of oil. Now Russia have announced the increase in oil price, and we don't know whether this will be for India.

It’s not just about norway or iceland, in many european countries energy costs are exploding, so they need to do something. And sure underdeveloped countries need them more, but if the eu decides to not get them, doesn’t mean other more poor nations will, that’s not how economy works.

Underdeveloped countries will need cheaper solar panels, and that can be achieved with economies of scale. If you have many european nations working on this and ramping up their production, that also means underdeveloped countries will be able to afford more of them.

The need for the solar panels are mostly in the countries where there is a lot of power outage. These are not developed countries like iceland and Norway. People already have good standard of life and they do not worry about the basic necessities of life like we do in the underdeveloped countries. People of Iceland and Norway would not image how people in our country faces trouble.

But then they also have sunlight 24/7 for 6 months of the year, so in the end it comes down to storing solutions. Hydrogen could actually work and it can be exported too. And another point is, the amount of money politicians waste on useless things is insane and nothing compared to this. So id rather see investments to strengthen industries and higher demands with solutions like this. They would spend their budgets anyways on other things, if not this.

Let's talk about solar panels not from the point of view of the position "they are not effective", but from the point of view of objective reality?
So. A little information:
1. The most efficient environment for solar panels to work is cold weather with bright sunshine. Under such conditions, solar cells generate maximum energy!
2. A less efficient environment is bright sunshine and high ambient temperatures. More precisely, the higher the ambient temperature, the higher the losses of solar panels. It is a fact. In a hot environment, with bright sun, generation losses can reach 25%!
3. Without the sun, more precisely in a cloudy environment - solar panels work too! Only the efficiency is inversely proportional to cloud density. Those. if these are ordinary clouds - the efficiency will be quite high, at the level of 50-80%, if these are "heavy clouds" - the generation will drop to about 20-30% of the nominal value.
4. Still greatly affect the efficiency:
- type of batteries - monocrystalline or polycrystalline,
- the quality of the outer coating
- correct placement and positioning of the batteries (if we talk about mounting on the roof, without rotary systems)

I personally worked a lot with this product, developing the project of my country house (although not built yet). For neighbors who managed to build houses earlier, solar energy + storage system allows covering most of the household electricity needs. Yes, the initial investment is noticeable, but not "all the money in the world", especially since the project is absolutely recouped! The region is about 40 km from Kyiv. So I know not by hearsay, but from real miscalculations and experience in launching such systems with real people.

Norway. If you did not know, then I will inform you - about 96% of all electricity produced in Norway comes from hydroelectric power plants Therefore, solar panels in Norway are rather an auxiliary solution. I recommend to visit Norway and appreciate their environmental friendliness! No wonder they are one of the leaders in sales of electric vehicles, and will soon completely abandon passenger vehicles with internal combustion engines.

The cost of living in the EU is quite different from country to country. I also recommend driving and comparing these figures in the following countries - Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Finland and Norway of course You will be surprised how different the cost of living indicators are!

Solar panels work best in countries like South Asia where producing electricity from oil is expensive and sun is available almost 12 months. I am seriously thinking of buying solar panels as my electricity bill is going high and also for 8 to 10 hours we don't have any electricity.

EU continues to implement stupid rules, which will accelerate it's own economic decline. Solar panels are not suitable for each and every part of the European Union. Imagine installing solar panels in countries such as Iceland and Norway, where there is hardly any sunlight for 6 months of the year. If the EU want to produce more electricity from renewables, then they need to do it themselves rather than passing on the cost to the ordinary citizens. Already due to sky high taxes, cost of living in the EU zone is almost 100% higher when compared to the same in the US or Middle East.

They’re actively researching on how to make solar-to-hydrogen production economically viable, which could be one way to do this.

Solar panels are obviously very good solutions for the fuel and energy consumptions.
The winds mills too. Those countries which have found local solution have created a great solution for this and the coming generations.

A very positive decision! Now it will be noticeably more difficult for some gentlemen from the EU to trade with conscience, because it is quite expected that the residential sector will stop consuming such quantities of gas from a terrorist country, and will stop from their own pocket, forced (to Gerhard Schroeder for this "gratitude") to sponsor world terrorism in the face of the Kremlin . In a word - bravo! Europe has finally begun to understand that being dependent on terrorists is bad, and being forced to sponsor terrorists is even worse!

Everything new is always in doubt. However, one thing is clear: there is no alternative to the transition from fossil energy sources to green energy, and in this regard, not only solar panels, but also other sources such as wind turbines, geothermal stations and others should be considered. I am absolutely positive about the massive introduction of solar panels. Certainly, this must be done. Moreover, their energy efficiency is constantly being improved, and the cost is falling. Even before Russia's attack on Ukraine, European countries adopted a program to switch from fossil energy sources, which pollute the environment and, moreover, their reserves will soon be exhausted, to renewable energy sources. This war of conquest only naturally accelerates such a transition.

the countries which receives good sunshine and they can afford the solar panels - so why not use natural light rather than electric power.
My country faces so much power outage trouble - we so want to shift to solar panels but we cannot afford.

   Yes if government provide subsidy for solar panels, it's a good idea to reduce carbon .Even it's a big cost but it's still worth it for today's and the future.

Having a solar panel is not as cheap as we could think, this this is very expensive and the government needs to come to the aid of the masses that may not be able to afford such. Using a solar energy in the house has it own advantages and disadvantages which can never be compared to the normal mass electric consumption that we do pay for.

Energy from batteries has it own effect like it will not be able to carry large current capacity appliances that requires huge electric current to power. Operating on solar energy doing the winner will have great effect on different households because there will be limited energy from the sun to charge the batteries.

Not enough is not a good response to it, neither the expensive bit. Because we are not talking about something that should gather the all energy needs ever, we are talking about a lot more clean energy and thats a good enough reason. Why should it cover %100 of it? Even if it covers %10 of it, why not go for something that will make the world more green, even if %10 more thats still a good thing. On the other hand, the expensive part is that we are talking about new homes being built, and this is being mandatory there, well building a new home is not cheap at all, it costs a lot, adding solar panels to that is not even the most expensive part, why build a house and do something that costs so much, and yet not pay a bit more, like %10 more or even less, just to make the world a better place?

It only sounds simple but there are downsides of using solar as energy as the panels can be expensive and the energy that the sun can provide might not be as strong as the traditional energy that most people are using now. This solar energy is not new but if there are new here maybe this was the first time to be implemented on this place or idk maybe they already tried using solar before but they are now making it mandatory.

Not sure if this has a relation to Ukraine and Russia war but one thing is for sure and that is they are doing this to help the environment as we all know that our environment has now been greatly damaged.

I am not sure about it. But the country I live in - we face almost 8 hours of power outage, there is a server energy crisis. This brings in so much physical and mental torture that work life balance is also affected. Saving energy should be top priority of the world.
We suffer so much!

As we already know, such a law will not make much sense in countries that do not have many hours of suns hours a year, but in some other countries it may be useful, although people should be encouraged to do so because they want to, not because it is mandatory. One thing that EU bureaucrats do not take into account is that these panels will be exposed to damage from the increasing summer storms, and one such a few days ago did enormous damage in my country, among other things destroying a good part of solar panels with hail. Imagine having to buy new panels every year because you have to have them on your house and the storm keeps destroying them over and over again.

---

I will not say anything more than to look at who are the people who were (or still are) in the supervisory boards of the largest Russian energy companies, and these are people from the EU (especially Germany). Their interest was not to reduce the EU's dependence on Russian oil and gas, but to increase it even more.

All these stories about sanctions and energy independence are mere fantasies and are used for daily political purposes, and in a few years everything will be the same as before - cheap oil and gas will flow into the EU as if nothing had happened. If in 20 years the Taliban have gone from being terrorists to being good guys, does anyone think that Russia will become some kind of country like North Korea?

We are forgetting that maybe not everyone has enough money to buy solar panels, but the topic here is that "new houses" needs to have this. So, it is not asked to be bought by everyone neither, it just says that every new house needs to have solar panels on the roof probably (where else could you put it? I do not know) and only the constructors of those houses need to pay for it and get it, and only the buyers would have to pay extra for it, that’s it.

This is why I believe that it shouldn't be that much of a shock for people to put this in motion, because it’s not forcing everyone to get it. Solar is great, and new houses is a limited small part of it.