Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BigMoose9000 t1_iv7davx wrote

Reply to comment by sg3niner in New dwellings in Washington state must be warmed by heat pumps, rather than furnaces, beginning in July, state board rules Friday by BarnabyWoods

  1. Residential solar is still very expensive, and adding to cost makes the housing crisis worse. Parts of CA require solar and look how that's working out.

  2. There's still a shortage of raw materials to make solar panels even at the current demand level, requiring them would create a years-long backlog of building projects that can't be completed because they're waiting for solar panels to be manufactured. Again making the housing crisis even worse.

  3. Current solar panels have a useful lifespan of around 20 years, after which they're hazardous waste. We don't have a way to recycle them. Starting to require them today means creating a hazardous waste crisis 20 years from now.

2

BarnabyWoods OP t1_iv8gur0 wrote

>Current solar panels have a useful lifespan of around 20 years, after which they're hazardous waste.

This is untrue. The SilFab panels (made in Bellingham, by the way) I just put on my roof are guaranteed to maintain 97% of their efficiency for 30 years. They don't become waste after that point, their efficiency just slowly drops off. They'll likely still be pumping out plenty of power for decades longer.

As for your claim that there's a shortage of raw materials, I bought mine 6 months ago, with no delay in promised delivery date. And I don't know what you mean by "look at how that's working out" in California. California's power costs are about triple those of Washington's, so the typical payback period of home solar is only about 6 or 7 years. You'd be stupid not to buy a house with solar in California.

4

BigMoose9000 t1_iv8jhge wrote

That warranty's worth about the paper it's printed on. If they hold up - great. If they don't - the company goes bankrupt from warranty claims. They win either way.

>I bought mine 6 months ago, with no delay in promised delivery date.

You bought panels that were in stock, great. Most companies stop selling when they don't have in-stock panels because the lead times are too unpredictable to take pre-orders.

>And I don't know what you mean by "look at how that's working out" in California. California's power costs are about triple those of Washington's, so the typical payback period of home solar is only about 6 or 7 years. You'd be stupid not to buy a house with solar in California.

The problem is where it's required. Bill Maher made national news when he made it public he'd been waiting for over 3 years for his solar installation to be approved. If his house had been a new build that required solar to be occupied, it would've been sitting vacant for over 3 years.

1

BarnabyWoods OP t1_iv8w961 wrote

Whether the manufacturer is still in business or not, the fact is that the panels aren't going to be hazardous waste in 20 years. They're still going to be pumping out power. And I don't know what Bill Maher's problem was, but it only took me a couple of weeks to get the permit for our solar install. Nobody I know who's put up home solar in Washington has any delays from permitting. So you hate solar? Fine, don't buy it, and keep paying your big electric bills. But spare us this Newsmax bullshit.

1