[lisplist]

Maybe slightly unrelated, but I've done a lot of road trips throughout the US, and there is so much land that is used unproductively, it's really incredible. Land that could be used for energy, food, or housing, just sitting empty or with abandoned structures.

Imagine if we just paid people to coat their properties in solar panels - throw them on your roof, lawn, wherever you have the space. We could drive energy prices down to nothing. We could pay people to install ADUs. The resources are there, but the imagination and commitment are not.

Instead, I'm looking at a $40k+ solar install for my very small house and a breakeven on investment in maybe 10 years for a house I probably won't live in by then.

[asdff]

The land isn't being used because there is no pressing need in the market for more land use. I don't think people realize how much agriculture yields have improved since the 1950s. It is astounding really how much yield we get per acre now mostly from leveraging hybrid species actually, that has been a far bigger improvement to yields than even fertilizer use which is probably what most lay people think is the source of modern yields. In some crops and regions its on the order of 10 fold improvement in yield per acre.

[lisplist]

The market is often either wrong or distorted by existing government policies. For some things, subsidies need to be involved to create a new industry where there isn't one. For others, subsidies are a waste of money leading to graft and excess. If I were the one with the credit card, I'd be betting big on hydroponics/vertical farms, medium to high density housing, and high speed rail.

Despite plenty of demand, high density housing still isn't getting built nearly as fast as it should. High building costs, zoning laws, and the ability to just suburban sprawl to infinity mostly prevents this.

Pretty much all vertical farming startups have gone bankrupt. There are endless benefits to vertical farms, but we don't do it because existing farms are cheap in comparison to the necessary investment to make this viable.

We don't build high speed rail because it's a multi-decade long project involving massive logistics, training programs, lots of land rights issues, and the fact that for short to medium distance trips people would probably still prefer to drive since once you get to your target destination, there's still no way to get around without a vehicle.

[WalterBright]

> We could drive energy prices down to nothing.

Not when you're paying people to coat their properties in solar panels. As you noted, that would cost plenty.

Solar panels also degrade over time. By the time the "free" electricity has paid for the installation, you'll need to replace it.

[AndrewDucker]

Payback time in Scotland is 6-ish years. Same seems to be true in Massachusetts. Solar Panels have a lifespan of around 25 years. Inverters may need to be replaced sooner than that, but still last at least a decade.

So it pays for itself 3-4 times over.

[hunterpayne]

There is no way that is true unless those solar panels are very subsidized. The energy needed to make a PV is 2x what that panel would harvest over its entire lifetime in Scotland for example. Scotland is a terrible place for PV. The numbers you give are probably accurate for central Mexico though. Also, the mean lifetime of a PV panel is 20 years.

[lisplist]

We spend billions every year in gas subsidies. We spend billions every year in food subsidies. For energy independence and the carbon reduction alone, this is a worthwhile investment even if the upfront costs are substantial.

[AndrewDucker]

Your information appears to be 20 years out of date.

[nickpp]

There are other reasons though. Whole house backup is a game changer. Battery always holding about twice our daily usage (or thrice a reduced, emergency usage) means I don’t really care about blackouts or midnight electrical company maintenance power cuts.

Direct to EV DC charging means I don’t buy gas, either. Planning for induction range and heat pump someday too. Not paying for energy about 3/4 of the year feels awesome.

Panels are cheap. Cheap to replace too. The newer ones have even better efficiency. My whole (unsubsidized) sistem cost around $15k here in Eastern Europe and amortization was never a consideration. Money well spent.

Finally, giving the finger to another crappy government-granted monopoly and proving once again that there is no such thing as a “natural” monopoly: priceless.

[g8oz]

>>By the time the "free" electricity has paid for the installation, you'll need to replace it.

You are going to have to back this up with credible citations. Otherwise it sounds like skepticism from 2008.

[WalterBright]

You're right, I ran the numbers years ago. I remain as skeptical as I am for roofing lifetime claims.

[1attice]

Impressive commitment to stale inference from dated data.

[WalterBright]

30 year solar panels haven't even passed 20 years yet.

[g8oz]

Payback is considerably less than 20 years in most locations.

[amanaplanacanal]

How often do you think solar panels need to be replaced?

[fc417fc802]

Approximately 3 times during the course of your life assuming you receive them when you're born and live for 100 years. They're roughly equivalent to wood siding or an asphalt shingle roof.

[WalterBright]

An asphalt shingle roof lasts about 20 years, and that's for the "40 year" premium shingles.

Source: my experience

Roofers also tend to regularly close their businesses and open under a new name, so they don't have to honor any longevity warranties.

[fc417fc802]

If we accept what you say then the roof would need to be replaced 4 times instead of 3. Surely you agree that the situation is broadly similar?

Worrying about the longevity of properly installed solar is quite silly.

[WalterBright]

> silly

30 years ago was 1996. No 30 year panels have lasted anywhere near 30 years yet.