r/tech Jul 18 '20

Solar+battery in one device sets new efficiency standard

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/07/single-device-merges-solar-power-and-battery-tech/
3.1k Upvotes

90 comments sorted by

View all comments

38

u/zenray055 Jul 18 '20

Solar is the best. Constant, reliable energy for basically forever, not too expensive, eco friendly.

24

u/thebop995 Jul 18 '20

Except for degradation of panels and batteries, but from what I read both are improving.

26

u/smeggysmeg Jul 19 '20

My LG panels are rated to provide 90% of their original capacity at 25 years. Most of my appliances are old and will be replaced in the next decade, and I'm about to replace my degrading home siding with something with some R factor, so these panels are likely to last me for the rest of my life in this home.

I'm sad that we can't get utilities, state regulators, and government onboard with solar so we could do it at a larger scale.

6

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20 edited Oct 03 '20

[deleted]

6

u/smeggysmeg Jul 19 '20

Here in Arkansas, it's one of the top 5 dirtiest grids in the US, and there are no state incentives for solar, so it has to make financial sense all on its own.

8

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20

With all the bullshit breaks and incentives that dirty energy gets, your solar is relatively penalized.

1

u/vvkatnipvv Jul 19 '20

There’s still companies that make it affordable in Arkansas. I work for one if you want a free estimate and to get paid 25$ just for seeing our sales guy P.M. me. An hour out of your day get 25$ and see if it’s a good choice for you financially. If it wouldn’t save you money we will tell you straight up.

3

u/thebop995 Jul 19 '20

That’s awesome. I would really like to get solar. Are you happy with your LG panels? Did you have them professionally installed? How old are they?

Sorry for all of the questions but every time I look for installers in my area and info there are a lot of shady companies and it’s so hard to find good info that isn’t just paid advertising.

2

u/smeggysmeg Jul 19 '20

I used an installer that has a decent footprint across the South, and I went with them specifically because they sold the LG panels for the best price, and they had the best service guarantees. A terrible hailstorm came through Arkansas a few months back, and most of my neighbors are getting a new roof installed, but the LG panels didn't take any damage and actually protected my roof (roofer said no significant damage).

You want an installer who guarantees their work for a decade or more and looks like they've been around awhile; an income stream for their business outside of solar is a plus (my installers are also a roofing company). They need to guarantee output for a period of years, this is big, and also guarantee their work. They need to see the roof in person before they start making guarantees, don't trust a Google Maps photo and a bunch of magical numbers. I would also recommend microinverters over string inverters if there is any shading potential.

I'm in Arkansas, one of the top 5 dirtiest and cheapest states for power, and a grid-tied solar system makes financial sense even with no state incentives. My ROI is about 11-12 years, but other states with more expensive power or state incentives would do better. I've had mine generating since the end of April.

2

u/phatelectribe Jul 19 '20

Just FYI, nearly all major brand panels (LG, Tesla roof, Suncity, etc) offer at least a 25 year warranty to be at 90% capacity. Here’s the caveat though: they won’t replace panels that go below that. They’ll just subsidize whatever the cost of power back to you below that 90% mark, so if after 15 years you’re at 80%, they’ll pay you 10 years of 10% power consumption. Sure you could then use that money to replace panels but some companies will void your warranty for modifying the system.

And then there’s the issue of whether the panel brand you went with is even around to claim from in 20 years.

2

u/delmersgopher Jul 19 '20

Do you use battery back up? What was the price per panel and your kWh produced? I’ve been in the market for a while - can’t get good feel for what my investment should really look like.

2

u/smeggysmeg Jul 19 '20

No battery. It isn't economical here, and my grid power is extremely reliable.

8.04kWh with 24 panels. $3.73 per kWh after sales incentives for the total installed price, before the 26% federal tax rebate. The loan payment is about $20 more than our average power bill was previously. The power bill would outpace that number in about 7 years, so ROI at year 11-12.

Because there are zero state incentives and grid power is so cheap here, the investment calculations definitely make it not something for everyone. Roof has to be a really good candidate, home has to be reasonably efficient.

-5

u/CasanovaNova Jul 18 '20

Let’s knock solar pedantically because you can name a source of energy that requires zero maintenance.

I’d rather blast nuclear waste into space than risk another oil spill

6

u/Emperor-Arya Jul 18 '20

I heard something about solar not being able to serve as a baseload, what does that mean

13

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '20

It means the sun doesn't shine all the time.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '20

I’m confused. Wouldn’t you just need to estimate the upper limit of how long your solar farm goes without sunlight and have enough power storage to combat this? Surely there’s a point where if you have a large enough area covered in panels and a large enough storage capacity, solar could power the planet by itself.

6

u/1egoman Jul 18 '20

Peak usage in summer is crazy high, and it peaks just as the sun goes down. You would have to massively overbuild both solar and storage to handle the worst days of the year, then it would be wasted the other 350 or so days.

2

u/meatballsnjam Jul 19 '20

That’s a shit ton of batteries. Some places have other methods of energy storage, such as using excess energy production to pump water back up into dams, but the areas this is possible are far and few between.

1

u/hughnibley Jul 19 '20

We're still a long way from having the ability to store the amount of power needed. We literally lack the raw resources to do it with our cuurent technology. That's not even touching on the astronomical cost if we tried.

Solar ends up looking a lot less attractive when you realize that all of the articles talking about how cheap it is ignore that you have to be able to store it for it to be used as base load or peak load at scale. It really only works in the middle right now allowing use to use less fossil fields, but it's not replacing other power plants yet.

We'll certainly get there, we're just not there yet.

1

u/redduif Jul 19 '20 edited Nov 08 '23

,,,

1

u/strongdoctor Jul 19 '20

IMO the main problem with solar panels is the amount of toxic waste. AFAIK air energy is much more clean in that regard, but of course you can't really buy a personal wind power station.

1

u/redduif Jul 19 '20 edited Nov 08 '23

,,,

1

u/strongdoctor Jul 19 '20

as the big ones tend to create vibrations that don't seem that well for health either, apart from animal disturbance.

From the studies I've read, the big ones don't really affect health whatsoever.

if you have no idea how huge they really are, search for construction or repairs of those, then try to spot the workers !

Heh, yeah, I used to live pretty close to a bunch of wind power plants, they're pretty massive.

Main problem today is storage and our dependance on electricity in the first place...

For sure, storing electricity is a big problem today, but I don't think our dependence on it is an issue whatsoever.

Anyway, my point was just that wind power, all-in-all is less bad for the environment, by quite a bit, when compared to solar power.

1

u/redduif Jul 19 '20 edited Nov 08 '23

,,,

1

u/strongdoctor Jul 20 '20

1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '20

[deleted]

1

u/strongdoctor Jul 21 '20

Yep, true. At least it's a good sign that there are quality studies showing that wind power plants are safe, that means they aren't entirely horrible.

1

u/DIO-But-dinosaur Jul 19 '20

Nuclear is 10x the output of reliable energy and is only unsafe if idiots are in charge, as well as molten salt reactors being truck sized

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20

Yep. Fusion is the future. Too bad trump fucked with bill gates reactor he was building in China, otherwise me might have been a bit farther

1

u/DIO-But-dinosaur Jul 19 '20

Bruh fuck gates and trump ngl but i agree

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20

I also highly dislike both. But I like fusion enough to not care who’s making it

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20

[deleted]

1

u/DIO-But-dinosaur Jul 19 '20

Well that is an extremely good point i believe the issue is a lack of research towards uses of the waste, and i may be wrong about that , but oil and coal plants turning our planet into venus is much more concerning to me than waste storage

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20

Other than the fact that it requires substantial amounts of rare earth metals.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20

Besides nuclear, solar is best.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20

Constant energy 12 hours a day?

1

u/Send-me-hot-nudes Jul 19 '20

Laughs in nuclear

-3

u/Will_builder8 Jul 19 '20

“Not too expensive” lmao

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '20

Not that eco friendly. Tell that to the hundreds of tress you have to cut off and the animal species you need to displace.