OPINION: Banks margins have grown since the cost-of-living crisis began. And every other week it seems, they’re pushing home loan interest rates still higher.
My point is that people tend to dismiss mass solar based on perceived problems without realizing there are solutions to them.
Some of my ideas are costly, sure, but others aren’t. Why is charging a slow release heater and heating your hot water during the day not cost effective? It is cost neutral, but utilizes solar.
Why is a crown corp offering full price buy-back not cost effective? There is no reason for the lower buy-back rates, other than to ensure profit for the power companies. If the company was not profit driven, they could offer full buy back rates. How do I know this? Because it used to be that way, but the buy back reduced as solar uptake increased.
Stop dismissing progress because it might require a small amount of problem solving. Otherwise, we will need improve our country.
The point I’m making isn’t that these problems can’t be solved, it’s that there are far better options than going all in on solar. Your heater idea, for example, could be done. But why, when a modern heat pump gives you close to five times as much energy out as you put in? It would overall use far more energy, and would use it at a time when solar is at it’s least effective.
Not only would you be using this energy at a different time to when it was generated, but you would also be using it in a different place. The far north of the country would be generating it, and the deep south would be using it.
It’s important to have some solar, especially on buildings that are running HVAC, because peak production coincides with peak demand, but running the whole country on it doesn’t add up.
Oh I totally agree solar is only a part of the solution, not the magic bullet. Absolutely agree. I was really just trying to point out why the usual refrain of “it’s not perfect so there’s no point doing it” and “but what about this problem, let’s not even bother” is tiresome.
My point is that people tend to dismiss mass solar based on perceived problems without realizing there are solutions to them.
Some of my ideas are costly, sure, but others aren’t. Why is charging a slow release heater and heating your hot water during the day not cost effective? It is cost neutral, but utilizes solar. Why is a crown corp offering full price buy-back not cost effective? There is no reason for the lower buy-back rates, other than to ensure profit for the power companies. If the company was not profit driven, they could offer full buy back rates. How do I know this? Because it used to be that way, but the buy back reduced as solar uptake increased.
Stop dismissing progress because it might require a small amount of problem solving. Otherwise, we will need improve our country.
The point I’m making isn’t that these problems can’t be solved, it’s that there are far better options than going all in on solar. Your heater idea, for example, could be done. But why, when a modern heat pump gives you close to five times as much energy out as you put in? It would overall use far more energy, and would use it at a time when solar is at it’s least effective.
Not only would you be using this energy at a different time to when it was generated, but you would also be using it in a different place. The far north of the country would be generating it, and the deep south would be using it.
It’s important to have some solar, especially on buildings that are running HVAC, because peak production coincides with peak demand, but running the whole country on it doesn’t add up.
Oh I totally agree solar is only a part of the solution, not the magic bullet. Absolutely agree. I was really just trying to point out why the usual refrain of “it’s not perfect so there’s no point doing it” and “but what about this problem, let’s not even bother” is tiresome.