GCC: IEA: global energy demand rose by 2.3% in 2018, fastest pace in the last decade; CO2 emissions up 1.7%

[SageBrush]

RE costs,

Excellent post, thanks for sharing.

Why would you call in a contractor for the install ? Keep in simple, keep it cheap, and DIY !

 

[GRA]

RE costs,

Excellent post, thanks for sharing.

Why would you call in a contractor for the install ? Keep in simple, keep it cheap, and DIY !

Not my call, and we'll need an electrician in any case, as the house only has 120V service now. Installing a charging circuit will require installing a new panel at the service entrance, rated for a lot more power than currently (just two 30A breakers). Not to mention, permit requirements are considerably tighter around here than is typical of more rural areas. And the city has an onerous clearance requirement (for firefighters) of 3 ft. from the ridge and the street edge instead of the more typical 6" - 18". As the (AZ. 140 deg.) garage roof's only 6'6" from ridge to eave and the roof including overhangs is 23' long, modules would probably have to be installed in landscape format, which severely limits the number that can be installed, probably just three, although I'm surfing module spec sheets to see if I can find some that will fit vertically in the space.

As the roof tilt's only 13 deg. it's possible to put modules on both sides of the ridge, with the 320 deg. azimuth side losing about 200kWh annually (for a 1 kW array) compared to the SE side (ca. 1,400 kWh annual prod. depending on module efficiency). I need to go by the city permit center and see if that 3 foot clearance is only required on the street side, or if it's also required on the opposite side. The diagram I have is ambiguous on that point. Still, with an annual savings of at most $306 for a 1kW array on the good side using premium modules, and the typical system price/watt around here, it's very hard to make an economic argument for this over a reasonable payback period (for him).

 

[Oilpan4]

People want solar power, just as long as it's not built near them lol.

https://www.centralmaine.com/2019/04/08/fairfield-homeowners-say-proposed-solar-array-on-u-s-201-will-hurt-property-values-quality-of-life/

 

[GRA]

Robin Weeks said she is in favor of solar energy, having been program coordinator for Kennebec Valley Community College’s energy service and technology program, which ran solar workshops.

“The technology is great,” she said. “But not in my front yard. I encourage it, but not here in my front yard.”

She's not a NIMBY, she's a NIMFY :lol: I'm reminded of this section from David Mackay's "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" (pgs. 108-112), where after listing how much renewable energy resources Britain has and could even theoretically make use of, he then goes on to list all the reasons why people resist every single one of the techs:

Green ambitions meet social reality
Figure 18.1 is bleak news. Yes, technically, Britain has “huge” renewables.
But realistically, I don’t think Britain can live on its own renewables – at
least not the way we currently live. I am partly driven to this conclusion by
the chorus of opposition that greets any major renewable energy proposal.
People love renewable energy, unless it is bigger than a figleaf. If the British
are good at one thing, it’s saying “no.”

Wind farms?
“No, they’re ugly noisy things.”

Solar panels on roofs?
“No, they would spoil the visual amenity of the
street.”

More forestry?
“No, it ruins the countryside.”

Waste incineration?
“No, I’m worried about health risks, traffic con-
gestion, dust and noise.”

Hydroelectricity?
“Yes, but not big hydro – that harms the environ-
ment.”

Offshore wind?
“No, I’m more worried about the ugly powerlines
coming ashore than I was about a Nazi invasion.”

Wave or geothermal power?
“No, far too expensive.”

At least PV and onshore wind are no longer too expensive. https://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_108.shtml