Why aren't all new houses built with Solar Panels integrated?

[Brent]

Not for primary power generation of course, but as a supplement to the power of the house during the day time when there is light available. Power can be supplemented, taking some strain off of the main power grid. At night the house will run off the main grid as usual (unless some houses have batteries maybe to store the solar energy.)

It just makes sense to me, we have the capability to harness energy from the Sun, I say we do that. It will be a step in the right direction and should make a big impact over time just with that one small step of building solar panels into homes.

Could even go further and say build wind turbines into houses as well. That power is there, this should be built right into houses by default.

The technology is there, so lets use it, yeah?

 

[Lindley]

What provisions would be made for panels getting covered in snow and whatnot?

Personally, I think what we need is a way to "bake" power collection capabilities into asphalt the same way we mix glass fragments into road paint to make it reflective.

 

[Brent]

What provisions would be made for panels getting covered in snow and whatnot?

Could they be heated? I know new cars have things like heated mirrors now.

There are lots of environments where it doesn't snow though, big cities like LA for example, would benefit a lot from having homes with built in solar panels.

 

[FordSVT]

Eventually, we'll have photovoltaic windows, paint, roofing materials, etc.

As for the OP's question, because it still adds thousands and thousands of dollars to the price of a new house, plus the added maintenance cost. With the cost of solar cells and high density batteries coming down it won't be long until they are affordable for anyone, but not quite yet.

 

[Dayton3]

You can't solve our energy problems with solar power anyway.

So why bother?

Serious about pollution free electricity. Build nuclear power plants.

 

[Brent]

It is an evolutionary step in the right direction. Won't solve it, but it will help. If EVERY home in the world used solar to help supplement power, well then......

 

[Alpha_Geek]

What provisions would be made for panels getting covered in snow and whatnot?

Could they be heated?

Think about that for a second... The solar power coming from the sun isn't sufficient to melt the snow covering the solar collector. By expending energy to melt the snow, what would be the net gain or loss to the energy reserve that you're trying to build with the solar collector?

 

[FordSVT]

You can't solve our energy problems with solar power anyway.

So why bother?

Serious about pollution free electricity. Build nuclear power plants.

How dense are you, man, are you just pretending?

It's ONE thing people can do to get electricity. NO ONE is talking about replacing ALL of our electricity with solar power.

Wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, it's all on the table. To think any one source of energy (including nuclear) is the magic bullet that will solve our energy problems is incredibly naive and ill informed.

 

[T J]

Money. It's always about the money. Not enough money in it so there is no incentive to get done. So basically greed is the reason.

 

[FordSVT]

Money. It's always about the money. Not enough money in it so there is no incentive to get done. So basically greed is the reason.

That's not really true, solar panels are simply a lot more expensive than the alternative at the moment. Who can blame people for not jumping whole-sale into a technology that hasn't fully matured yet?

Solar panels have been around for what feels like forever, but the technology has only gotten affordable in the past few years. Production capacity is still insignificant compared to what would be needed if there was a real commercial market for the equipment. This is all changing though, the price of solar panels and batteries is plunging every year, and new technologies on the horizon could make fabricating solar cells very cheap.

 

[Forbin]

Why aren't all new houses built with Solar Panels integrated?

I'm sure black people use them too.

 

[JustAFriend]

The MAXIMUM solar power hitting the Earth is about 700watts per square YARD.
Solar panels are less than 20% efficient and if you have clouds, pollution, a tree or other building blocking you, not pointing directly at the sun or even living in an upper latitude will bring that meager efficiency down considerably.

Solar just DOESNT generate a lot of power. And it only works for less than half the day, less depending on the latitude.

You'd need a acre or so of panels to run a decent-sized house, unless you want to live in 3rd-world conditions..... shouldn't cost you more than half-a-million or so, not counting the cost of the land or the maintenence required.

Oh, and lets not forget the heavy metals and toxic processes required to produce solar cells, too.

So, when do you want us to start on your house????

 

[Ward Fowler]

Why aren't all new houses built with Solar Panels integrated?

I'm sure black people use them too.

 

[Brent]

You'd need a acre or so of panels to run a decent-sized house,

I didn't say run an entire house on it, I said supplement power, reducing demand on the grid.

 

[Neopeius]

You'd need a acre or so of panels to run a decent-sized house,

I didn't say run an entire house on it, I said supplement power, reducing demand on the grid.

An *acre*?

I have a friend with a 4500 square foot house. Has a solar panel set up in his back yard on a trellis--it would fit on his roof, but he didn't like the look. His electric bills were $12 a month.

 

[FordSVT]

You'd need a acre or so of panels to run a decent-sized house, unless you want to live in 3rd-world conditions..... shouldn't cost you more than half-a-million or so, not counting the cost of the land or the maintenence required.

You're completely and utterly wrong on that bit, and I'm speaking as somewhat of an expert on the subject having designed such systems.

The average household uses approximately 10kWh operating TV, computer, lights, heat, etc. At the currently available efficiencies (about 70mW/sq. in.), it would take approximately 22 square meters worth of solar panels to generate that much power. The panels would cost about $15,000, the battery and inverter system another $10,000 or so.

So no third world conditions, and several orders of magnitude cheaper and smaller than you imagined. This is assuming a moderate latitude and an average of 5 hours of direct sunlight per day (some days none, some days 12 hours). I'm not arguing they are cheap, they are most certainly not, and most people would never get their money back with such a system over conventional power and heating methods, but don't fly off the handle with exaggerations. The technology improves markedly every single year, it's only a matter of time before they are much more efficient, compact and inexpensive.

 

[Kaziarl]

there are houses here in the willamatte valley of oregon, where it's cloudy 90% of the time, that have solar panels. One person I know, for example, used to get a $10 check from PGE every month because the panels were sending power to them. Went about 3 months before PGE decided to say they didn't need them as a customer.

And I don't see why we can't build them into houses. The Aptera has them built in, that new hybrid that supposedly gets like... 300 miles a gallon. And just like Brent is suggesting here, it's to run with the primary power source for the vehicle, not replace it.

 

[John Picard]

You can't solve our energy problems with solar power anyway.

So why bother?

Serious about pollution free electricity. Build nuclear power plants.

For my next house (which will be an older home), I'm planning to install solar collectors to charge a bank of batteries. The batteries will power the LIGHTS, which will be LED's. LED's generate almost no heat and consume very little power.

Money. It's always about the money. Not enough money in it so there is no incentive to get done. So basically greed is the reason.

Gee, the universal answer to why costly technologies aren't embraced. Back in the 70's the enviro-freaks were preaching solar, yet the panels were $10,000 *EACH* and had a lifespan of approximately 10 years. Talk about a massive NET LOSS.

 

[Johnny Rico]

Not for primary power generation of course, but as a supplement to the power of the house during the day time when there is light available. Power can be supplemented, taking some strain off of the main power grid. At night the house will run off the main grid as usual (unless some houses have batteries maybe to store the solar energy.)

It just makes sense to me, we have the capability to harness energy from the Sun, I say we do that. It will be a step in the right direction and should make a big impact over time just with that one small step of building solar panels into homes.

Could even go further and say build wind turbines into houses as well. That power is there, this should be built right into houses by default.

The technology is there, so lets use it, yeah?

Having the technology is one thing...for that source of energy to be reliable is another.

There's a reason why wind trubines aren't built just anywhere. Some parts of the country just aren't windy enough to be worth while.

Same thing with solar panels...some parts of the country or world for that matter don't get enough sunshine to be worth it either.