LogFAQs > #950779763

Paragon21XX posted...

And then they'll to install an expensive energy storage system (both to buy and also maintain) to be able to continue using electricity when there is little or no solar energy production (might as well go 100% off grid in that case), or else stay on the utility grid for such periods of little or no output in which case if the grid ever loses power, the solar array must be completely isolated from the home's electrical system as it poses a safety hazard to utility crews who expect a completely de-energized grid while repairing it.

In other words, unless the home is completely off-grid, a power outage means that the homeowner is not allowed to benefit from solar energy if electricity from the grid ever goes out, even if there is enough solar energy to power the some or all of the home during the duration of the outage, and therefore we're back to the original issue of homes losing power because the grid is not reliable.

1. They're not expensive to maintain lmfao what in the absolute FUCK are you talking about

2. Solar Systems are connected to a "disconnect" switch that can be operated from the owner's property. Only, this switch effects power going into the home and that's it. The power company will have access to a "disconnect" switch of their own which will shut off power going both ways; from the home of someone, and from the power line to the home. There is no hazard of "the grid being live when they expect it to be dead" if all of their regular safety precautions are followed.

3. No one is suggesting that it's going 100% solar. There is just a very obvious problem that can be fixed if most homes were to adopt solar, as most of their energy needs can be provided year round(with an extreme likelihood to overproduce during spring, summer, and part of fall, which gets sent back to the power company who stores it for later use)

---

I've grown.