Bitcoin Forum

Solar panels would be mandatory on all new buildings in the European Union under a new proposal aimed at ending its reliance on Russian fossil fuels by 2027 and supercharging its transition to green energy.

The “solar rooftop initiative” in the European Commission’s REPowerEU plan would introduce a phased-in legal obligation to install solar panels on new public and commercial buildings, as well as new residential buildings.

“We can also lead by example,” Frans Timmermans, who is leading the commission’s work on the European Green Deal, said at a news conference announcing the plan on Wednesday. “Let us show as a commission how quickly we can put solar panels on our buildings.”

The initiative forms part of the commission’s drive to scale up and speed up renewable energy in power generation, industry, buildings and transport, to accelerate the EU’s independence from Russian imports, give a boost to the green transition and reduce energy prices over time.

The detailed plan published on Wednesday comes after the commission, the European Union’s executive arm, called for the rapid phase-out of Russian fossil fuels and an acceleration of the European Green Deal in March in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

European leaders then agreed to fully phase out Europe’s dependency on Russian gas, oil and coal imports as soon as possible at the European Council meeting later that month, and asked the commission to develop a plan by the end of May.

The REPowerEU plan published on Wednesday is the commission’s detailed proposal of how to do just that. The plan has three main pillars: energy savings, diversification of energy supplies, and accelerated roll-out of renewable energy.

The commission has said the plan will require an additional investment of €210bn (£178bn) between now and 2027 from the private and public sector across Europe, describing it as a “downpayment” on the bloc’s future independence and security. The proposal says cutting Russian fossil fuel imports can save the EU almost €100bn a year.

“It is clear we need to put an end to this dependence [on Russian fossil fuels] as soon as possible and a lot faster than we had forseen before this war,” said Mr Timmermans. “In March we showed it could be done, the European Council in Versailles decided it should be done, today we show how it will be done.”

Accelerating the rollout of renewables

The proposed mandatory solar panel roll out is part of the ‘renewable energy’ pillar.

The commission is proposing to increase its current target for renewables to produce 40 per cent of the EU’s energy by 2030, raising it to 45 per cent.

In order for this to happen, the commission is proposing to double the rate of deployment of heat pumps, to produce 10 million tonnes of domestic renewable hydrogen by 2030, and to double wind and solar capacity.

By 2030, solar energy will also be the largest electricity source in the EU with more than half coming from rooftops, said Kadri Simson, the EU commissioner for energy.

The commission is also calling on member states to create dedicated “go-to” areas for renewables in places with lower environmental risks, where it says permitting processes should be shortened and simplified.

It says it will roll out contracts to support the update of green hydrogen by industry and will use emission trading revenues to support the switch away from Russian fossil fuel dependencies. It says it will also “intensify” work on the supply of critical raw materials for the renewable transition and prepare a legislative proposal.

“There is huge potential for rooftop solar ... there is a huge potential for on and offshore wind, there is a huge potential for increased biomethane production,” said Mr Timmermans. “If we do all these things we will first of all reduce our imports of Russian gas by one-third already this year and then we will, working towards 2027, reduce our dependency to zero.”

Saving energy

In terms of saving energy, the commission is proposing to raise its current target for reducing energy consumption by 2030 via energy efficiency, from 9 per cent to 13 per cent.

It is also encouraging member states to use policy to boost energy savings, such as reduced VAT rates on energy-efficient heating systems, building insulation and appliances and products, or by strengthening national energy requirements of new buildings.

In the short term, citizens and businesses can save energy by reducing heating temperatures and reducing the use of air conditioning, switching off lights, using more public transport and using household appliances more efficiently, the commission added.

“The cheapest energy is the energy you don’t use,” said Mr Timmermans.

Diversifying energy supplies

In the proposal, the commission says it is considering the development of a “joint purchasing mechanism”, which will contract and negotiate gas purchases on behalf of participating member states. It will also enable joint purchasing of renewable hydrogen.

The commission will also consider legislative measures to insist on diversification of gas supply over time by member states, it added.

https://news.yahoo.com/solar-panels-set-mandatory-buildings-112507536.html

California Gives Final OK To Require Solar Panels On New Houses

Solar panels will be a required feature on new houses in California, after the state's Building Standards Commission gave final approval to a housing rule that's the first of its kind in the United States.

Set to take effect in 2020, the new standard includes an exemption for houses that are often shaded from the sun. It also includes incentives for people to add a high-capacity battery to their home's electrical system, to store the sun's energy.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/06/674075032/california-gives-final-ok-to-requiring-solar-panels-on-new-houses

“We can also lead by example,” Frans Timmermans, who is leading the commission’s work on the European Green Deal, said at a news conference announcing the plan on Wednesday. “Let us show as a commission how quickly we can put solar panels on our buildings.”

Democrats Push Green New Deal Measures, Other Liberal Policies Through House

July 1, 2021

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Michael Guest (MS-03) voted against the Democratic Majority's $715 billion package reauthorizing surface transportation and water and wastewater programs. The bill excluded almost all of the Republican alternative proposals in the STARTER Act 2.0, including those that would address the gaps in funding between rural and urban transportation, create more flexibility for local governments to address their state or region's own unique needs, and streamline costly review processes in order to reduce bureaucratic delays. The legislation passed 221-201.

https://guest.house.gov/media/press-releases/democrats-push-green-new-deal-measures-other-liberal-policies-through-house

I have read posts on this forum claiming solar is not a good energy option for europe. It appears EU lawmakers have also heard the call and decided to rule against it by making solar panels on new real estate development obligatory.

That honor belongs to the US state of california who requires newly constructed homes to have solar panels on them by default as of 2020.

Using a yearly average, there are 5.38 daily peak sun hours across the state of California.
vs
Germany has about the same solar potential as Alaska, which has an average of 3.08 sun hours/days

I find solar panels not the best solution to fight with high electricity prices. To be able to set a proper amount of solar panels to become independent from outside electricity sources, a house must have particular roof sloped. You cant just install a solar panel on each cardinal direction of a roof and be happy.

It's probably something Spain and Greece could do well having but I'm not sure if there's any other country that gets a good amount of sun.

If they tried making rooftop wind turbines that were quiet and stable enough, you'd be able to produce a lot of electricity from the UK, the Netherlands, France, Denmark, Sweden (and probably most of the rest of Northern Europe).

The rise in fuel price is probably good in a way as it might make renewables seem a more attractive source (the EU already sources half of it's electricity from renewables). I think Denmark is able to source half of its electricity usage by wind too.

This sounds more like a publicity stunt to fool the masses into thinking they are solving the issue.

For starters most of the energy is spent in the industries, for example most of the gas that is bought from Russia goes directly to factories not the housholds, a lot of electricity is also used by industries. In other words if every house added the solar panels it still wouldn't cut the dependence on Russian energy.

On top of that, there are parts of EU that don't have that much sunlight to begin with. The solar panels would work on a much reduced capacity at all times.

But this does not fully solve the problem because this will solve the problem max to heating up houses, electrifying them etc.

Does anyone knows anything about solar panel maintenance? I mean like special maintenance? Or it will be enough to clean it with a a wet rag? I am not an expert, but I feel like solar panel maintenance is going to be regular, sort of a monthly cleaning.

In the end, either they will have to build more nuclear or they will have to continue consuming fossil fuels, no matter how much measures like this are meant to pretend that they will solve something.

Although in principle it may seem a logical measure, it seems a bit desperate to me. It is logical because the EU does not have large reserves of fossil fuels that it could extract if it wanted to. So it seems that intensifying the use of so-called green energies would be a solution.

The problem is that they have got where they are precisely because of this, and they seem to want to keep digging the hole deeper. "Green" energies need backup power of uninterruptible supply. It's not always sunny, it's not always windy, so you need other energies. They don't want nuclear, they don't want oil, and the solution until recently was gas, LOL, you see gas is green and on top of that depending on Russian gas.

In the end, either they will have to build more nuclear or they will have to continue consuming fossil fuels, no matter how much measures like this are meant to pretend that they will solve something.

On top of that, there are parts of EU that don't have that much sunlight to begin with. The solar panels would work on a much reduced capacity at all times.

One of the biggest items used to produce Solar Panels is coal, so we are still extracting
fossil fuels to create Solar.

Would be interested to know which direction public opinion is blowing on these policies.

Not something I'm massively in know of, but I'm wondering if transferring the energy that has been collected in countries or areas which are more prone to sun, to places without that much sun could be an option. I'm assuming this would likely be quite expensive, and would likely mean losing some of that energy in the process, but I keep hearing that this is priority from the governments, so why haven't they kicked into gear?

One of the biggest items used to produce Solar Panels is coal, so we are still extracting
fossil fuels to create Solar.

Not something I'm massively in know of, but I'm wondering if transferring the energy that has been collected in countries or areas which are more prone to sun, to places without that much sun could be an option. I'm assuming this would likely be quite expensive, and would likely mean losing some of that energy in the process, but I keep hearing that this is priority from the governments, so why haven't they kicked into gear?

The UK, Norway, Germany, Netherlands and Denmark will invest about 135 billion euro into building wind turbines in the North Sea.

It's probably something Spain and Greece could do well having but I'm not sure if there's any other country that gets a good amount of sun.

If they tried making rooftop wind turbines that were quiet and stable enough, you'd be able to produce a lot of electricity from the UK, the Netherlands, France, Denmark, Sweden (and probably most of the rest of Northern Europe).

The rise in fuel price is probably good in a way as it might make renewables seem a more attractive source (the EU already sources half of it's electricity from renewables). I think Denmark is able to source half of its electricity usage by wind too.

It'd probably also be useful to push efficiency, a modern mobile phone uses very little electricity when compared to other things (boiling a kettle uses about the same energy as giving a phone a day's charge).

Not something I'm massively in know of, but I'm wondering if transferring the energy that has been collected in countries or areas which are more prone to sun, to places without that much sun could be an option. I'm assuming this would likely be quite expensive, and would likely mean losing some of that energy in the process, but I keep hearing that this is priority from the governments, so why haven't they kicked into gear?

To be clear on this new regulation, This is a mandatory requirement for new building and not on the existing one or houses of normal people with normal salary. The building owner has a fund for this extra cost and doesn't need a subsidy unless government requires all the existing houses and buildings to put solar panels on their roof. Besides this extra cost will be ROI later on so definitely this is not a big deal for building owners, especially factories that contribute too much carbon in the air that results in global warming.

Maybe factories should be focus next to implement this law.

to be honest, not everyone has the ability to buy solar panels because they are quite expensive, especially for the installation and battery costs.. if the government can provide subsidies for this I think this could be the best option to reduce carbon footprint, particularly in the European region

We really need something far more serious than just this price spike or the threat of Russia cutting the gas to finally start building back nuclear power plants, it's the only obvious choice that produces energy 24/7 and that can store the fuel for decades, but now, because one earthquake and tsunami in Japan, Germany who hasn't experienced an earthquake over 7 on Richter scale in its history and only 2 over 6 in 700 years decided they are too risky, and this while France has one of its powerplants right on the border.

Though this may be the case, still, the best course of action is to continue purchasing solar panels for alternative source of energy for consumption. If these countries have other sustainable methods, such as wind powers, etc., then they may opt to. But for the meantime, solar panels still provide the best course of alternative energy though it may be expensive initially.

This kind of alternative fuel should be installed into countries that are geographically placed into locations in which sunlight is abundant. I do hope that the government of other countries would follow this kind of implementation to take advantage of something that is free and natural.

There is a question: Why did Europe take so long to turn to clean solar energy instead of relying on Russian fossil gas that pollutes the environment, but I think the reason is economic in the first place

This law is simply about generating power to the building and houses. This policy is to take care of the challenges of energy and it is not really new to hear it because it is already seen around. I believe it is the awake of this Russian and Ukraine war that has waken EU to such solution. Apart from new buildings, some old buildings are being renovated to carry solar panels and I think it is good for the people to use solar energy to power their houses, it could be cheaper also and convenient.

This law is simply about generating power to the building and houses. This policy is to take care of the challenges of energy and it is not really new to hear it because it is already seen around. I believe it is the awake of this Russian and Ukraine war that has waken EU to such solution. Apart from new buildings, some old buildings are being renovated to carry solar panels and I think it is good for the people to use solar energy to power their houses, it could be cheaper also and convenient.

to be honest, not everyone has the ability to buy solar panels because they are quite expensive, especially for the installation and battery costs.. if the government can provide subsidies for this I think this could be the best option to reduce carbon footprint, particularly in the European region

to be honest, not everyone has the ability to buy solar panels because they are quite expensive, especially for the installation and battery costs.. if the government can provide subsidies for this I think this could be the best option to reduce carbon footprint, particularly in the European region

   Yes if government provide subsidy for solar panels, it's a good idea to reduce carbon .Even it's a big cost but it's still worth it for today's and the future.

I'm not an expert in this field but I think it is impossible and here is why:
- One big problem would be the distance. A country that has a lot of sunlight is far from another country with little sunlight.
- We know the problem when transmitting electricity is resistance and the solution to that is to increase the voltage significantly for long distances. They seem to be using 155,000 to 765,000 volts for a max 500 km distance.
- The solar panels don't seem to be able to provide any more than 0.5 volt per cell (panels have between 36 to 144 cells so 72 vols max per panel).

A very positive decision! Now it will be noticeably more difficult for some gentlemen from the EU to trade with conscience, because it is quite expected that the residential sector will stop consuming such quantities of gas from a terrorist country, and will stop from their own pocket, forced (to Gerhard Schroeder for this "gratitude") to sponsor world terrorism in the face of the Kremlin . In a word - bravo! Europe has finally begun to understand that being dependent on terrorists is bad, and being forced to sponsor terrorists is even worse!

Not something I'm massively in know of, but I'm wondering if transferring the energy that has been collected in countries or areas which are more prone to sun, to places without that much sun could be an option. I'm assuming this would likely be quite expensive, and would likely mean losing some of that energy in the process, but I keep hearing that this is priority from the governments, so why haven't they kicked into gear?

EU continues to implement stupid rules, which will accelerate it's own economic decline. Solar panels are not suitable for each and every part of the European Union. Imagine installing solar panels in countries such as Iceland and Norway, where there is hardly any sunlight for 6 months of the year. If the EU want to produce more electricity from renewables, then they need to do it themselves rather than passing on the cost to the ordinary citizens. Already due to sky high taxes, cost of living in the EU zone is almost 100% higher when compared to the same in the US or Middle East.

EU continues to implement stupid rules, which will accelerate it's own economic decline. Solar panels are not suitable for each and every part of the European Union. Imagine installing solar panels in countries such as Iceland and Norway, where there is hardly any sunlight for 6 months of the year. If the EU want to produce more electricity from renewables, then they need to do it themselves rather than passing on the cost to the ordinary citizens. Already due to sky high taxes, cost of living in the EU zone is almost 100% higher when compared to the same in the US or Middle East.

Imagine installing solar panels in countries such as Iceland and Norway, where there is hardly any sunlight for 6 months of the year.

But then they also have sunlight 24/7 for 6 months of the year, so in the end it comes down to storing solutions. Hydrogen could actually work and it can be exported too. And another point is, the amount of money politicians waste on useless things is insane and nothing compared to this. So id rather see investments to strengthen industries and higher demands with solutions like this. They would spend their budgets anyways on other things, if not this.

The need for the solar panels are mostly in the countries where there is a lot of power outage. These are not developed countries like iceland and Norway. People already have good standard of life and they do not worry about the basic necessities of life like we do in the underdeveloped countries. People of Iceland and Norway would not image how people in our country faces trouble.

It's probably something Spain and Greece could do well having but I'm not sure if there's any other country that gets a good amount of sun.

If they tried making rooftop wind turbines that were quiet and stable enough, you'd be able to produce a lot of electricity from the UK, the Netherlands, France, Denmark, Sweden (and probably most of the rest of Northern Europe).

The rise in fuel price is probably good in a way as it might make renewables seem a more attractive source (the EU already sources half of it's electricity from renewables). I think Denmark is able to source half of its electricity usage by wind too.

It'd probably also be useful to push efficiency, a modern mobile phone uses very little electricity when compared to other things (boiling a kettle uses about the same energy as giving a phone a day's charge).

It's something I was always shouting for, I live in Greece and it would be a great opportunity for homeowners to adopt such an innovation. Personally, at my parental home we have plenty of space in our rooftop, offering great sunlight coverage. If we had invested in something like this, our house could easily be self-sustained and not pay a single dime for electricity.

Solar panels are expensive, but in cases like mine, they'd pay off really quick, achieving ROI in just a few years.

It's something I was always shouting for, I live in Greece and it would be a great opportunity for homeowners to adopt such an innovation. Personally, at my parental home we have plenty of space in our rooftop, offering great sunlight coverage. If we had invested in something like this, our house could easily be self-sustained and not pay a single dime for electricity.

Solar panels are expensive, but in cases like mine, they'd pay off really quick, achieving ROI in just a few years.

EU continues to implement stupid rules, which will accelerate it's own economic decline.

Insane measure introduced in Croatia: hoe is forbidden! He who digs with it and gets rid of weeds with the strength of his muscles is left without money. We were raised on the proverb: There is no bread without a hoe...

Solar panels are not suitable for each and every part of the European Union. Imagine installing solar panels in countries such as Iceland and Norway, where there is hardly any sunlight for 6 months of the year.

Dont forget, that solar panels dont accumulate electricity, you cant install a huge power bank at home. You cant rely on them for 100%. At night, you will still be have to use "regular" electricity. If you want to get maximum from solar panels electricity, you would have reschedule your daily routine, move things like laundry, ironing, or things were electricity is used on a day time. Some people can do that, some will have to "partly rest at a day" and "work at nights".

1. The most efficient environment for solar panels to work is cold weather with bright sunshine. Under such conditions, solar cells generate maximum energy!

Iceland and Norway are not part of the EU but part of something called the EEA (https://www.gov.uk/eu-eea) (European Economic Area), so I don't think this law should apply to them. In addition, every law passed in the EU parliament needs to be approved by national parliaments, and some member states will certainly not accept this.

That is correct. I am sure people who have solar panels installed would be doing the same. Now because in my country electricity crisis is a real trouble.
We are now seriously thinking to install solar panel at home because there is no solution to it.

Oh... in that case I erred and need to apologize for that.

It is nice that the national parliaments need to approve these stupid measures. I am sure that the Green party dominated countries such as Germany would approve it, putting the citizens further neck deep in debt. More sensible ones, such as Poland and Hungary would refuse to do that.

Stock markets are crashing around the world. Bitcoin has lost two-thirds of its value from the peak level that was reached less than a year ago. Inflation rate is in double digits. This is not the right time to further overburden the ordinary people.

~~~
I am not in favor of forcing people to install solar panels on all new buildings, but in countries that have plenty of sun during the year it would really make sense - of course provided that the purchase of solar connectors and equipment is co-financed by the state.

Here in India, the government subsidizes installation of solar panels for private households. I am not sure about the exact amount, but somewhere around 50% of the cost is borne by the government (but like any other third world country, there is a lot of red tape and bureaucracy to overcome). If the EU is also thinking in similar lines, then I don't believe that there will be much opposition. Anyway, in the long run the residents will benefit out of it in the form of cheap electricity. But if they want the private individuals to bear 100% of the cost, then I am afraid that it's not going to work.

I was thinking of installing solar panel in my house because electricity is too expensive now and we don't get electricity for 24 hours. I live in country where 7 to 8 months we have sunny season and summers are too hot. But your posts just shocked me that panels are best for warm regions not for hot. Can you explain with some references?

The use of solar panels as alternative energy is really needed today to cover electricity needs, the increasing need for electrical energy will certainly accelerate the depletion of fossil fuels that have been used for power generation, the use of solar panels may look cheaper, efficient and can save usage fuel oil or gas, at this time I see many who discuss the positive side of using solar panels, but does anyone know what about the negative side of using solar panels for humans and the environment?

Dont forget, that solar panels dont accumulate electricity, you cant install a huge power bank at home. You cant rely on them for 100%. At night, you will still be have to use "regular" electricity. If you want to get maximum from solar panels electricity, you would have reschedule your daily routine, move things like laundry, ironing, or things were electricity is used on a day time. Some people can do that, some will have to "partly rest at a day" and "work at nights".

India is doing so much for the people. I wish our government do the same for us.
But the weather is so hot here and power outage is around 10/12 hours so we have decided to have less grocery from now on and will buy the solar panels. 

I was thinking of installing solar panel in my house because electricity is too expensive now and we don't get electricity for 24 hours. I live in country where 7 to 8 months we have sunny season and summers are too hot. But your posts just shocked me that panels are best for warm regions not for hot. Can you explain with some references?

I think it's fine for southern Europe that gets plenty sunshine all throughout the year, so just Spain, Greece and maybe parts of Italy. But what about the rest? The yield might not be as good in the areas with longer winters.

Take a look on an interesting article - Will solar panels get cheaper? (updated for 2022) (https://www.thesolarnerd.com/blog/will-solar-get-cheaper/). It seems that situation with solar panel prices is doing opposite of normal market rules. Demand is growing (or will start to grow soon), but the price of solar panels is decreasing. Even we put aside recent financial problems, from the article we find that the price of 1 kW is increasing, number of of installed solar panels is increasing either, but the price of solar panel equipment reduced by almost 90% during last 10 years. Isnt this indicates that solar panels is not the best solution for expensive electricity?

As time progress technology will get more and more affordable, unlike the case with non-renewable commodities such as oil and gas. So there is no surprise here. Desalination used to cost as much as $3 per cubic meter two decades ago, but now it costs less than $0.50 per cubic meter. Similarly, 1 GB of mobile data used to be priced at $3 in India 10 years ago. Now it costs around $0.05. The case with solar panels is similar. As technological advance is made, the products will get cheaper. And in the future, we can expect the prices to further go down.

That is correct - with the passage of time with more use of solar panels and more coming in market, things will be much easier and cheaper for the average person too. That is very good example quotes. of the mobile data. I would want to mention here there was a time when even attending the phone costed a lot.

Everytime there's a development in the technology, the old discoveries becomes cheaper and more affordable which is actually beneficial to average people. In our country, solar light panels were too expensive before and we couldn't even afford them but right now, our streets are filled with solar lights. It simply means that as time passes by, some technology-related stuff decreases its value due to its increasing supply and decreasing demand.

nucular is the fastest and cheapest green energy that can power whole eu

Solar panels are good for warm but not hot climates. Huge equipment and battery costs, high maintenance and washing. For the correct operation of solar panels, a certain angle of inclination is required, and this is not always possible. To feel the benefits for your pocket, you need to use these panels for many years and there is no guarantee that they will pay off. Good idea but not for everyone.

Six months ago my friend installed solar panel. He is so happy and believed this is the best decision he had ever made.
The solar panel is future - one should grab it sooner the better.
I am also interested in installing solar panel in my home but problem is reverse electric meter.

Very happy for your friend! How long does he use solar panels? I think that buying a battery and all the equipment will require a lot of money. Does your friend live in a sunny climate? Solar panels are guaranteed for 10 years, and the service life of these panels is 20-30 years. Will he be able to recoup their cost in that time?

yes - we live in the area where temperature touches to 50 F in summer too. Its too hot mostly 5 months are summer. So we have air condition on for almost 4 months in row. HE is using the panels which send the electricity back to the power plant. That is how he has not paid any electricity bill after he has installed the panels.

Someone here mentioned that not much european countries can take advantage of that, and that's not true. With Spain and Grece there is also Italy and Croatia, some parts of Slovenia, but actually, it's 32 degrees and sunny in Berlin these days, and that tells me that a lot of countries will be able to take advantage of this, at least a couple of months a year, and that's plenty.

I am not an expert, but I will try to come to a logical conclusion by throwing some googled data here. In a ~60m2 flat I spend about 5kw daily. I cant install solar panels on house facade only for myself, but I will copy data from "company that provide solar panel, installations services and etc". Company has a portfolio. From a picture of private house roof that says 5kw I see 8 panels.

From a picture of private house roof that says 5kw I see 8 panels.

My monthly electricity bill is about 40 EUR.

You guys are missing the bigger picture. Solar panels have the variable cause the dependent on the sun lit in its way to provide power. This makes it become tricky to make it an energy source for stable 24/7/365 day, all season in EU country. The movement or green deal behind it quite not close to what it stood since waste from the battery, from the used panels, from maintaining upkeep doesn't worth what it can give back. I rather have EU haste its plan to renew and build the new nuclear plants.

If you consume 150kwh a month, I highly doubt your bill is just 40 euros right now in Germany, no fricking way you're getting 25cents per kWh with all vat and taxes and monthly fees, E.On already charges 44 cents per kWh in Hannover, I can tell you this from a May bill my co-worker received.

You guys are missing the bigger picture. Solar panels have the variable cause the dependent on the sun lit in its way to provide power. This makes it become tricky to make it an energy source for stable 24/7/365 day, all season in EU country. The movement or green deal behind it quite not close to what it stood since waste from the battery, from the used panels, from maintaining upkeep doesn't worth what it can give back. I rather have EU haste its plan to renew and build the new nuclear plants.

Yes, that would be much better than solar panels. But this will take many years, maybe decades. Solar panels can provide electricity today. Indeed, maintenance and repair will require a lot of costs and not everyone will benefit from it. In addition, in this way it will be possible to support manufacturers of solar panels. They also need income. Especially if they are produced in their own country.

You're mixing power and energy.
You're spending 5kwh each day, not kw, and solar panels don't come in kwh they come in more likely watts alone.
If you have 4x250 watts panels (1kw), and you have 4 hours of sunshine you will produce 4kwh of power that day.

So basically you will need 5 panels for your consumption.

I think that ain’t too bad, 5 panels could cost a bit when you are starting out, but from what I understand you are not going to spend another single dime on it ever again? So, your mining would forever be free? If that is the case, that initial start-up cost could be awesome.

It is interesting how things are playing out, due to the disaster at the nuclear plant of Fukushima of 2011 there was a very strong movement against nuclear energy all around the world, which lead to the suspension of the construction or the closure of nuclear plants, if politicians had not gotten fearful of nuclear energy back then Europe will not be anywhere as dependent on Russian gas and oil, so European governments are forced to take a suboptimal decision which will cost more money and will not be as effective, increasing the price of energy all over Europe just when we are going through a period of high inflation.

Europe has no other choice. It is not and will not be in the future! What is left to do to keep warm? Fire wood stove? Solar panels are still a modern form of electricity generation. This year they will be in great demand in Europe. Nuclear power plants are dangerous and if this option is considered, safety measures must be taken. What can be done here? Do not engage in nonsense and buy gas from Russia)

Doesn't it seem strange to you that solar panels are being talked about right now? At the time when today's conflict between the USA and Russia takes place? Last year, everyone was calmly ill with covid and everyone was an excellent virologist. This year, all the people around suddenly became international economists. Last year, everyone was fine and quiet in the queue for gas to Russia, and this suited everyone. Doesn't it feel like we're being manipulated? And what will happen tomorrow? What is the new topic of discussion?

Solar panels are the need of the time. Its the future, those who have taken the right decision at the right time are the real heros.
We have not done that till now. And we strongly repent. Now we all are planning to get a solar panal for our homes. That is the only solution for power outage.

I think that ain’t too bad, 5 panels could cost a bit when you are starting out, but from what I understand you are not going to spend another single dime on it ever again? So, your mining would forever be free? If that is the case, that initial start-up cost could be awesome.

I know a guy who does mining (gpu) in a small shed like stuff but he maxed out, he has like 200 gpu's inside that small shed, did it like that because he had a HUGE fan type of thing that cools it, hence if it is small enough, it would be easier to cool it as well, it’s not a freezer type of cold, but it is quite cold, like you wouldn't be able to live in that cold, it’s quite bad (well good for the machines). So, if he put some solars on top of it as well, that means this dude would get wealthy without spending another dime on it ever again?

solar panel is expensive in some countries because it lacks and it'll give a constant power supply in any household so solar energy is good electricity supplier when you have the money two by two regional one so the future is changing and no one is making use of plan that is known as electricity generator in his house. Because solar energy supply light without noise why generator supply light with noise pollution so people prefer using solar energy most at times Rich people

But in countries which have hot weather and the sun is up for approx 12 hours a day installing solar panels is a very good investment.
In subcontinent - particularly in India - the gov is providing subsidy for installation of solar panels. And also it is good for the those who consume lot of electricity. Those who made investment in early days have made decision.

What about countries that dont have any state support programs ? For example there is none in my country. I have already calculated, that it takes 8 years minimum to start getting profit from solar panel installment. 8 years is a lot. I dont think people even live more than 10 years in one flat, but those who do, usually are middle class or those who think 1000 times if they can afford to spend that much to install solar panels.

solar panel is expensive in some countries because it lacks and it'll give a constant power supply in any household so solar energy is good electricity supplier when you have the money two by two regional one so the future is changing and no one is making use of plan that is known as electricity generator in his house. Because solar energy supply light without noise why generator supply light with noise pollution so people prefer using solar energy most at times Rich people

The problem is not with solar panels, but with the battery to store the electricity. The main issue here is that solar panels generate power only during day time. And the peak electricity usage comes in the night time. So there is a requirement to store electricity. And batteries that are needed here can be expensive, needs constant maintenance and need to be replaced every 3-4 years. And during the last one or two years, the battery prices have gone over the roof, due to the rising prices of raw materials such as Lithium, Nickel and Cobalt. 

The problem is not with solar panels, but with the battery to store the electricity. The main issue here is that solar panels generate power only during day time. And the peak electricity usage comes in the night time.

And batteries that are needed here can be expensive, needs constant maintenance and need to be replaced every 3-4 years. And during the last one or two years, the battery prices have gone over the roof, due to the rising prices of raw materials such as Lithium, Nickel and Cobalt.

What about countries that dont have any state support programs ?

Its a really good move, we need to achieve global warming goals. Else the picture of global warming effects is really scary. However there is a need to make these panels hailstorm proof. I had few solar panels installed at my home, they got damaged in hailstorm. is there a way to make them work again?

Are you trying to break a record on how many times can you be wrong on a forum?
In what galaxy is the peak electricity usage at night?

https://images2.imgbox.com/55/28/qFnJ3Liv_o.jpg

Every state despite being 3000 km north or south uses nearly the same pattern, and I don't think 6 PM means nighttime anywhere!


Irrelevant, if you would have actually read the proposal it doesn't say at any point any of the buildings should be off-grid.


Simple, it will not be mandatory! We're talking about an EU program here!
It's like saying that Germany will ban ICE from 2050 and you come and ask what would Uganda do!

Not everyone has the goal of having a conceptual dialogue. Some want everyone to know that "solar panels are crap", and "expensive", that "wind stations prevent earthworms from sleeping", that tide stations ... tide stations .... Here's another propaganda of black slurry sellers, nothing came up with, but soon we will hear groans that "because of them, the Gulf Stream will break and everyone will freeze, so urgently buy gas only from us, and at $ 10,000,000 per cubic meter" :)

..
Sun and wind without a backup solution are not going to fix anything at a national scale, they still need a reliable continuous source, and that is only nuclear.
..

Well depends, and you know it because we had this discussion a few months ago
I'm on the same page, as I still believe that solar panels for the industry are crap, but when it comes to households things change dramatically as :
https://i.imgur.com/PnUFaEX.png

the energy consumption during the night is below 20% of the average. So if you have a 10kwh consumption per 24h, then you will need only 2kwh worth of storage for each night, or...even better, let the grid that is already showing downtrends take care of it and balance.
For the industry, for countries that can't get more than 4 hours of sun on average is still crap.

Wind stations tend to be more reliable as wind patterns are far clearer but still lack the uptime needed, so again I don't think that any of those two are solutions on their own, the only clean solution is to use pump storage facilities, but even those are limited by geographical reasons.

So while I do believe solar will manage to make a dent in peak consumption and they are offering a solution for stuff that works during the day, like public service buildings that open at 11:58 and close at 11:59  ;D with an afternoon break between, nuclear is the only choice of reliable 24/7 energy that can be used anywhere, literally anywhere! So don't give the Chornobyl reply on this, nor the 8grade Mercalli earthquake and tsunami of Fukushima since Germany has experienced the last major earthquake in 1756.

Sun and wind without a backup solution are not going to fix anything at a national scale, they still need a reliable continuous source, and that is only nuclear.
Of course, this doesn't mean I'm ok with burning gas for electricity, this is the worse compromise that leads nowhere in my opinion.

A new and promising technology, flexible solar panels. Advantages - there are no strict requirements for the mounting surface, convenience, convenient dimensions, a fairly good indicator of efficiency. While probably not the cheapest solution, but I think over time it will become much more affordable. Now, along with a hydro-thermal layer on the surface of buildings, an electrical generating layer can be applied! This solution is just right for large urban developments.
Happy viewing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9BRwVPLJOw

A new and promising technology, flexible solar panels. Advantages - there are no strict requirements for the mounting surface, convenience, convenient dimensions, a fairly good indicator of efficiency. While probably not the cheapest solution, but I think over time it will become much more affordable. Now, along with a hydro-thermal layer on the surface of buildings, an electrical generating layer can be applied! This solution is just right for large urban developments.
Happy viewing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9BRwVPLJOw

Yes, very often we see reports of new discoveries and developments that make solar panels cheaper and more practical, and also increase their efficiency. This direction of alternative renewable energy sources is not only very promising for the inhabitants of the planet, but also necessary for widespread implementation, taking into account the current sharp climate change, caused, among other things, by the massive and uncontrolled consumption of coal, oil and gas.
European countries have developed a program for the gradual transition from conventional energy sources to renewable sources of "green" energy, and this is the right and long overdue decision.

Honestly I wasn't expecting a marketing for a solar panel here, definitely was out of the blue. But the main problem with solar panels is not how strict they are or anything like that, it's transfer of energy and as long as that's not solved, we are going to keep coming back to the same conclusion.
Unless you plan on building wires from one place to another for miles which makes it quite difficult, then you have to find a way to get that energy from solar panels, and allow them to travel the world in a box or whatever and be easy to transfer. If you are doing it and then you have a big big loss of energy meanwhile, then that is the problem we are facing today and this doesn't solve that.

To me, this is a welcome development and one that is long overdue, I hope my dear country, Nigeria can copy from this,  as this will go a long way in solving the power challenges that is currently ravaging almost every part of the country.,
It is quite disappointing as to how a country that's been so blessed with all manner of natural resources continue to suffer in lack and insufficiency due to ignorance and political greed, my country is a nation blessed with so much sun, as such, the idea of making solar energy mandatory in every building is a good initiative that will not only benefit the EU citizens alone, but will also be of great benefit to Nigeria if the government can take up the idea as well, this will at the least, solve 90 percent of the power instability in the country.

To me, this is a welcome development and one that is long overdue, I hope my dear country, Nigeria can copy from this,  as this will go a long way in solving the power challenges that is currently ravaging almost every part of the country.,
It is quite disappointing as to how a country that's been so blessed with all manner of natural resources continue to suffer in lack and insufficiency due to ignorance and political greed, my country is a nation blessed with so much sun, as such, the idea of making solar energy mandatory in every building is a good initiative that will not only benefit the EU citizens alone, but will also be of great benefit to Nigeria if the government can take up the idea as well, this will at the least, solve 90 percent of the power instability in the country.

To me, this is a welcome development and one that is long overdue, I hope my dear country, Nigeria can copy from this,  as this will go a long way in solving the power challenges that is currently ravaging almost every part of the country.,
It is quite disappointing as to how a country that's been so blessed with all manner of natural resources continue to suffer in lack and insufficiency due to ignorance and political greed, my country is a nation blessed with so much sun, as such, the idea of making solar energy mandatory in every building is a good initiative that will not only benefit the EU citizens alone, but will also be of great benefit to Nigeria if the government can take up the idea as well, this will at the least, solve 90 percent of the power instability in the country.

Every country can mandate it, but it might also have some drawbacks in increasing the global temperature. I'm not sure of it, because if this has everything positive we could've seen more countries getting adopted to it. It has got more spending on initial setup, but the outcome is more productive and efficient.

If it hasn't got any drawbacks then it is pure politics, because of government can set solar units on every building then there won't be need of electricity consumption and production which will cut the market for electricity through which big corruption takes place.

There is nothing wrong in using solar panels or encouraging people to install it. But the problem here is that the authorities are putting the burden on common people, instead of subsidizing the installation or making it free. Already in the EU zone, citizens are distraught due to rising retail inflation and fuel price rise. This is not the ideal situation to overburden them. And also, why prioritize solar panels over other renewable options? What is wrong with installing a mini wind turbine instead of solar panels?