Expensive, less efficient, and very limited (Score: 3, Informative) by kwerle@pipedot.org on 2015-08-08 16:18 (#GTP6) Claimer: I work as a programmer for SolarCity.I'm in favor of all things solar. And if it ain't from SC, too bad for us.These things are less than 10% efficient. In general your roof points at the sun more than your windows do. For most buildings, there is a lot more surface area of roof than of windows. I'm always amazed at how much of a solar install is complicated because of wire management and things that are subtly not about the panels themselves - and I imagine doing those things on the roof is easier than in a window.So, yeah, I'm all for research and finding other solar/wind/whatever solutions - but solar on the roof is here and now. If your power bill is more than $100/month, you're a pretty good candidate for solar. If it's significantly more, then you're a great candidate. If it's less, then you still may be. Look into it.Is this an important step forward in solar power generation, or does adding windows to the mix constitute a gimmick? How do we get people more interested in solar energy?I think that the best way to save the planet is to make money doing it. And that's SC's proposition - save you some money, keep ourselves in business, and do that in a way that scales to the whole world. 'Cause if there's no profit in it, it's going to be mighty hard to convince everyone to do it. But if it makes financial sense to everyone involved and it doesn't screw up the planet, maybe we can make some progress. Re: Expensive, less efficient, and very limited (Score: 2) by fnj@pipedot.org on 2015-08-09 16:14 (#GWYP) Buildings vary a great deal. One World Trade Center has one hell of a lot more window area than roof area. So does the Empire State Building. Re: Expensive, less efficient, and very limited (Score: 1) by kwerle@pipedot.org on 2015-08-10 15:40 (#GZNR) Buildings vary a great deal. One World Trade Center has one hell of a lot more window area than roof area. So does the Empire State Building.Yes, and if you're going to be building a glass skyscraper then this is something you'll want to think about once they have move beyond 9 square inches of surface area.But for most of us, panels on the roof are a good solution at the present.
Re: Expensive, less efficient, and very limited (Score: 2) by fnj@pipedot.org on 2015-08-09 16:14 (#GWYP) Buildings vary a great deal. One World Trade Center has one hell of a lot more window area than roof area. So does the Empire State Building. Re: Expensive, less efficient, and very limited (Score: 1) by kwerle@pipedot.org on 2015-08-10 15:40 (#GZNR) Buildings vary a great deal. One World Trade Center has one hell of a lot more window area than roof area. So does the Empire State Building.Yes, and if you're going to be building a glass skyscraper then this is something you'll want to think about once they have move beyond 9 square inches of surface area.But for most of us, panels on the roof are a good solution at the present.
Re: Expensive, less efficient, and very limited (Score: 1) by kwerle@pipedot.org on 2015-08-10 15:40 (#GZNR) Buildings vary a great deal. One World Trade Center has one hell of a lot more window area than roof area. So does the Empire State Building.Yes, and if you're going to be building a glass skyscraper then this is something you'll want to think about once they have move beyond 9 square inches of surface area.But for most of us, panels on the roof are a good solution at the present.