Topic: Solar panels set to be mandatory on all new buildings under EU plan - page 6. (Read 1179 times)

This law is simply about generating power to the building and houses. This policy is to take care of the challenges of energy and it is not really new to hear it because it is already seen around. I believe it is the awake of this Russian and Ukraine war that has waken EU to such solution. Apart from new buildings, some old buildings are being renovated to carry solar panels and I think it is good for the people to use solar energy to power their houses, it could be cheaper also and convenient.

Nuclear power plants are not the way to go because how scary they could be. Yes it is definitely a "clean" energy when working properly, and it is a very efficient one as well because you could literally give energy to whole big capitals of the world with just one of them and even whole nations if the nation is a small one.

However, if something goes wrong then you will be at the end of it and you should be worried about it all over again and now instead of pollution this would be regarding radiation which is much worse because it makes you cancer. Solar is so simple, just do that, because with enough land, you could literally cover all the need very easily, it is so "out there" and simple.

Though this may be the case, still, the best course of action is to continue purchasing solar panels for alternative source of energy for consumption. If these countries have other sustainable methods, such as wind powers, etc., then they may opt to. But for the meantime, solar panels still provide the best course of alternative energy though it may be expensive initially.

This kind of alternative fuel should be installed into countries that are geographically placed into locations in which sunlight is abundant. I do hope that the government of other countries would follow this kind of implementation to take advantage of something that is free and natural.

My friend in South Africa told me once, their local municipality wants to implement a levy on the people using solar panels. Those people are going off the grid, because the electricity that are provided to them by the municipality are being priced at a premium and they cannot afford it anymore. (The electricity is also generated by coal-fired power stations)

The municipality wants to discourage people going off the grid, because it cuts an income source for them...when people do not use their electricity anymore. They plan to charge a "levy" on the electricity that are generated by solar to these households to cover their losses. 

So, it is absolutely crazy how different some governments and local municipalities are addressing "energy" supply and also how they rely heavily on "dirty" energy and still misuse their monopoly to drain money from their citizens.  

it's just my opinion ... it will be better when the government gives a commission for homes that want to apply solar panels to their buildings.. and it will be even better if factories can launch solar panels that are cheaper but with better quality

Easier said than done.  Solar panels are cool and all, but then you think about it and in some countries solar is not the way to go.  Would have been a more intelligent idea maybe to have free energy technology mandatory rather than solar panels.

You will have houses with solar panels more efficient than others.  Then when you think about it, is it fair for the owner of a house with little to no sunlight to be obliged to pay the same price for solar panels that the owner of a very sunny house has to pay?  This money could be invested in other technology such as windmills, which may be more efficient for the area the former lives in.

What I hate about it is that this is a rather political measure than one that is good for the citizens of EU.  The quote from OP has Russia mentioned 9 times in it.  This sounds like a plan made more to just p*ss off Russia when it could have been a plan to just make Europe more green and efficient overall.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

I'm not an expert in this field but I think it is impossible and here is why:
- One big problem would be the distance. A country that has a lot of sunlight is far from another country with little sunlight.
- We know the problem when transmitting electricity is resistance and the solution to that is to increase the voltage significantly for long distances. They seem to be using 155,000 to 765,000 volts for a max 500 km distance.
- The solar panels don't seem to be able to provide any more than 0.5 volt per cell (panels have between 36 to 144 cells so 72 vols max per panel).

There is a question: Why did Europe take so long to turn to clean solar energy instead of relying on Russian fossil gas that pollutes the environment, but I think the reason is economic in the first place, Russian gas is much cheaper than solar energy costs, especially if we consider the costs of maintenance and other requirements for solar energy such as batteries Which must be changed every year or two at the most, and this causes pollution to the environment as well, in addition to that, we also do not forget that the cold climate most of the year does not help a lot with the total dependence on solar energy.

The UK already has huge amounts of wind energy located around the country - both on and off shore. It would be good to get more variation with solar panels, tidal energy and even more nuclear energy. This idea seems to be long overdue and could have been implemented a decade ago, so I guess we should applaud Russia for spurring Europe into this plan of action since they started the war in Ukraine. The only downside I see and one that is often overlooked is how dirty the mining process can be when extracting all the rare metals that are used within these solar panels. Another key factor that will help with the adoption of renewables are constant increases in battery storage tech so it can last longer.

I think it's probably about as easy as putting down cabling for the Internet in the ocean, those take a lot of insulating and are quite expensive to install but once they're there they're quite easy to repair (and they're prjbably quite cheap compared to a government's normal budget).


They already have a lot of offshore wind turbines and I think Denmark can already produce half of its electricity from wind and the UK about a quarter (those turbines are huge though too - the UK only has 11,000 which seems a very small number considering all the infrastructure running).

There were major problems
- you get energy only during a certain time table so even if you import energy for a longer period let's say 8 hours instead of 4 you still have to make it for the other 16, so what might look like twice the production is still only a 25% reduction in storage capacity
- complete unpredictability, it's one thing importing from a country with 5 nuclear powerplants of 1000MW, another from 500 10MW solar farms, you constantly need to balance the grid and some countries are not interested in this expensive interconnection if there is no guarantee for the supply
- solar energy is not cheap, it's still paid for by the population by the government subsidies, which cease to exist once it's exported, making it not cost-competitive
- everyone wants to reach energy independence, even if it's green you still depend on your neighbors, so they would rather spend billions for extra generation and storage capacities than interconnections.


Coal is not used directly in the production of solar panels and if you think the coal burned for the energy required to manufacture that's a nonargument, hydroelectricity is only produced after we've built a thousand ton damn made of concrete using also energy, burning thousands of tons of oil to move all that material and the machines, if the energy that is used to produce panels is green then there is no coal being burned.





 

Tell me, what happened to the previous energy security plan for Europe, which relied on hydrogen? More precisely, a mixture of hydrogen and natural gas in a proportion of about 80 to 20 percent to compensate for the excess volatility of hydrogen. Europe does not have enough natural gas to meet its energy needs, but what I think is enough to mix it with hydrogen and get a low-carbon renewable clean fuel that can be stored in Europe's existing underground gas storage facilities, transported through existing gas pipelines and delivered to the final to the consumer through existing gas filling stations. Europe only needs to build a few hydrogen plants and the issue of cheap clean energy will be solved. Why this masturbation with solar panels, which will be planned unprofitable and will never pay off in more than half of Europe due to the unsuitable climate? Have European politicians completely lost their minds?

The plan is set to achieve two objective; transit Europe to renewable energy in power generation and curb or stop Europe dependence on Russian supplies. Critics have identified cost, maintenance skills, and durability as some of the problems of solar energy. But for me, if solar energy  is one of the means of gaining independence from Russian gas, then it is a risk worth taking. The European Union is so desperate to be free from Russian influence that they have pledged to invest €210bn to ensure that Europe become safe and self-reliant. After all, Europe is currently spending more to defend Ukraine and other nations. So both public and private firms would be granted some grants to produce and sell the solar system at subsided prices. There would also be training sections for individuals on how to install and maintain the solar system. If solar is one of the means of granting Europe power independence from Russia, let Europe embrace it now and adjustment can be made in the future.

There isn't yet a positive ROI associated with solar panels when you factor in initial cost, maintenance, and geographical variance with some places not being exposed to a lot of sunlight. It's another one of the "feel good" measures that attempt to shift the conventional forms of energy into the green renewable energy utopia (which isn't actually attainable at the moment). It's comical that they cite the reliance on Russian imports as a reason for this. Imagine not diversifying the energy sources, becoming self reliant, or modifying the energy trading partners but instead electing to choose technology that's under developed and doesn't meet energy demands. Nuclear energy seems more sustainable, but for obvious reasons, the Europeans use it.

I mean, if we look at the bigger picture, and assumed that this would work, which obviously as already established many places wouldn't have the same effectiveness of those in the southern areas of the world, Bitcoin could benefit from this. At the moment the biggest argument against Bitcoin would be the fact that it uses the grid for its miners,  whereas if every household converted to generating energy via the sun, we would see that argument become pretty redundant, and would likely benefit Bitcoin's adoption. At the very least, reduce its attack surface.

Not something I'm massively in know of, but I'm wondering if transferring the energy that has been collected in countries or areas which are more prone to sun, to places without that much sun could be an option. I'm assuming this would likely be quite expensive, and would likely mean losing some of that energy in the process, but I keep hearing that this is priority from the governments, so why haven't they kicked into gear?

Yeah. I guess the defense against this is they're going to need that production at first, but once they convert everything to solar, hydro or wind they'll be able to manufacture these things without using fossil fuels. Whether we ever get to that stage is another thing mind you.

Producing electricity doesnt happen at the flick of a switch, the huge power plants
used to produce electricity take hours to shut down and start up so in my country I
believe our Peat, Coal and Oil burning plants are constantly burning even
when the sun is shining and wind blowing because its not easy to just switch it off
and switch it on again.

One of the biggest items used to produce Solar Panels is coal, so we are still extracting
fossil fuels to create Solar.

So yes we are been hoodwinked into thinking Solar is a solution, big business concerned
with Coal burning and Solar production are reaping the benefits of all this.

Lols, we're talking about Europe and US here, electrifying what? Not that solar panels are a solution but let's not focus on problems solved a century ago.


Depends where you live, if you live in a region that gets at least one serious rain at least every two weeks with little dust you can clean them once a year, the effect of small particle deposits will be minimal, and cloudy weather will have more impact than this. If you live in a desert things might start to get a bit more tricky as you will need a once-a-week clean, and yeah, the usual garden hose and a sponge will do the trick.


We really need something far more serious than just this price spike or the threat of Russia cutting the gas to finally start building back nuclear power plants, it's the only obvious choice that produces energy 24/7 and that can store the fuel for decades, but now, because one earthquake and tsunami in Japan, Germany who hasn't experienced an earthquake over 7 on Richter scale in its history and only 2 over 6 in 700 years decided they are too risky, and this while France has one of its powerplants right on the border.

That sounds familiar. It's just like the Fed who talks of "fighting inflation", but won't do enough to actually fight it. The economy needs a hard landing, a crash, a reset. There's no other path but that. In the energy crisis in the E.U., everyone should only believe those politicians are serious in solving the issue, IF they make policies to set up and encourage the production of energy through.

Does anyone knows anything about solar panel maintenance? I mean like special maintenance? Or it will be enough to clean it with a a wet rag? I am not an expert, but I feel like solar panel maintenance is going to be regular, sort of a monthly cleaning. Compared to gas or water pipes, or wires, that require almost to maintenance and only annual check-ups. I bet if we sum up such points as panel price, installation, maintenance, payback, panels life cycle, it will turn out that it is aint so profitable in the end.

This sounds more like a publicity stunt to fool the masses into thinking they are solving the issue.
For starters most of the energy is spent in the industries, for example most of the gas that is bought from Russia goes directly to factories not the housholds, a lot of electricity is also used by industries. In other words if every house added the solar panels it still wouldn't cut the dependence on Russian energy.
On top of that, there are parts of EU that don't have that much sunlight to begin with. The solar panels would work on a much reduced capacity at all times.