Balcony solar panels can save 30% on a typical household’s electricity bill and, with vertical surface area in cities larger than roof space, the appeal is clear
Wrong question. The right question is: is the solar panel able to be CO2 neutral (at least) or CO2 negative. We don’t get anything out of it if producing the solar panel costs more CO2 emissions than it saves by producing electricity.
Before you ask: I don’t know the answer. I was looking into this thread in hope to find it.
To be a positive impact, they just need to be less carbon intensive thans the energy they displace. According to the first results on google, (presumably utility-scale) solar is about 12 times less carbon intensive than natural gas and 20 times compared to coal. So as long as you’re replacing base load and not utility solar, balcony solar could be as much as 10 times less efficient and still come out a net positive.
Keep in mind also that these numbers keep improving as solar panel manufacturing becomes more efficient and starts using more green energy itself over the coming decades
Most people don’t care about being CO2 neutral. The real question is what is the ROI? Will the panel save that person money. If it takes 50 years to pay for itself, I’d say that’s bad. 10 years is more standard. 5 years I say it’s a no brainer. Though I suppose you can also argue value for utility, if that is giving her the ability to power something off grid that would be worth something.
In Germany those panels usually pay themselves after about 5 years depending on the price of the necessary electronics (don’t forget the electricity meter!) and if there’s also a battery.
You don’t need a smart meter for this, just plug and play. If seen offers for complete sets from as low as 250€ in supermarkets, so almost everyone can get one and start saving some power.
I hung a solar panel vertically on my fence one time. It was facing west rather than south, but I was only getting about 3-4 watts on my 100 watt panel under the best conditions.
Less efficient than not having them?
Wrong question. The right question is: is the solar panel able to be CO2 neutral (at least) or CO2 negative. We don’t get anything out of it if producing the solar panel costs more CO2 emissions than it saves by producing electricity.
Before you ask: I don’t know the answer. I was looking into this thread in hope to find it.
To be a positive impact, they just need to be less carbon intensive thans the energy they displace. According to the first results on google, (presumably utility-scale) solar is about 12 times less carbon intensive than natural gas and 20 times compared to coal. So as long as you’re replacing base load and not utility solar, balcony solar could be as much as 10 times less efficient and still come out a net positive.
Keep in mind also that these numbers keep improving as solar panel manufacturing becomes more efficient and starts using more green energy itself over the coming decades
Most people don’t care about being CO2 neutral. The real question is what is the ROI? Will the panel save that person money. If it takes 50 years to pay for itself, I’d say that’s bad. 10 years is more standard. 5 years I say it’s a no brainer. Though I suppose you can also argue value for utility, if that is giving her the ability to power something off grid that would be worth something.
In Germany those panels usually pay themselves after about 5 years depending on the price of the necessary electronics (don’t forget the electricity meter!) and if there’s also a battery.
You don’t need a smart meter for this, just plug and play. If seen offers for complete sets from as low as 250€ in supermarkets, so almost everyone can get one and start saving some power.
I hung a solar panel vertically on my fence one time. It was facing west rather than south, but I was only getting about 3-4 watts on my 100 watt panel under the best conditions.
Depends, is an imaginary angle comparable to a 45 degree angle?