Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: »Climate Change and Global Warming
no it's not really true... Last year you received 450 Euro for 1000 kwh produced... This year 350 Euro, next year 330 euro per 1000 kwh produced... etc... That is guaranteed for the next 20 years, so you get that amount for sure for 20 years.... It's becoming less and less, but probably it will become cheaper to place, so it's quite normal... I will gain yearly 1600 Euro + I will get 40 % of the investment back via taxes... So nice investment ;)
Oh, than indeed it's an interesting investment, although it's not really 'nice' to see the solar panels on your roof.
I heard that argument before, but I don't care, I like the view... I have an ugly house anyway ;)
earth overshoot day (link)
time to be aware of the problems... at this speed, we'll have big difficulties in a few years
(edited)
time to be aware of the problems... at this speed, we'll have big difficulties in a few years
(edited)
how many of those collectors you need on your house?
here they sell 2,5m2 for 900 euros + 400 euros for some control devices.
here they sell 2,5m2 for 900 euros + 400 euros for some control devices.
I think it's cheap... Here I pay 12.000 Euro for 15 panels of 230 wp all together 3.45 KwP or a max production of 3450 kwh I think... I think its about 25 m²... The surface 1/10 of yours so mine costs more :)
my country has a very sunny weather during the whole year, and I've not seen any solar panel yet...
they are really expensive, specially when they break down and need to be inmediately repaired...
there are few companies involved in this bussiness and you've got to pay what they ask you..
they are really expensive, specially when they break down and need to be inmediately repaired...
there are few companies involved in this bussiness and you've got to pay what they ask you..
Mine are coming from Spain so they are probably exporting everything... it's a pitty in a country with a lot of sun... Energyproblem would be solved :)
The problems with solar panels are rare too and are mostly easily solved... I know installations who work allready 20 years without any problem and still producing more than 90 % compared to the beginning.
in belgium it really seems like a good deal(espescially if you get such bonuses) but for example my household needs 16 years to balance the current costs with the solar panel costs + additional costs for possible breakdown.
but someday in the future i will surely try it out, it is expensive but the more it gets used the cheaper it probably gets, hopefully more efficient versions will be produced due to more attention and research in them and it seems like the easiest way to maintain our living standards without ruining our future.
but someday in the future i will surely try it out, it is expensive but the more it gets used the cheaper it probably gets, hopefully more efficient versions will be produced due to more attention and research in them and it seems like the easiest way to maintain our living standards without ruining our future.
The problems with solar panels are rare too and are mostly easily solved..
when i was a child my school installed solar panels, but i can remember they weren't definitely a very good investment: at the second stone we throw, a puff of suspicious smoke began to billow from the panels...
sure its technology has improved since then.. xD
(edited)
when i was a child my school installed solar panels, but i can remember they weren't definitely a very good investment: at the second stone we throw, a puff of suspicious smoke began to billow from the panels...
sure its technology has improved since then.. xD
(edited)
How do such panels react on hail storms? Can they resist?
Well the whole global warming dilemma is a tricky one. I am not sure if we would be able to stop it now even if we tried. I mean there are not only huge sums of CO2 in our water/oceans that would make it hard to actually reduce CO2 in athmosphere once a level is reached, but there are also other aspects contributing to the dilemma. For example the loss of forests/rain forests (and thus less plants that will make O2 out of CO2), the aspect of animals and methane (methane is even worse than CO2 for global warming (well in same concentrations that is), it is getting produced by animals like cows) and the aspect of global warming and methane from crust of the earth (there are theories that higher temperature will set free more methane from earth crust - for example in permafrost regions).
Atm we are like a child playing with red buttons we have no idea what they will cause. Hopefully we will be lucky..
About Switzerland.. actually we have 5 nuclear plants. there u go. They plan to shut some of them down since years, but they usually just carry on anyway. There are actually plans for building of more blocks in those we have - what would be almost the same as building new nuclear plants (extention planned in: Beznau, Gösgen and Mühleberg). Not a big problem, because our regulations are some of the strictest in europe while the rules (for example in France) seem to be a lot less strict.
We still get most of our energy from water power though (you know that ugly dams in the mountains that contain water. The energy is produced by letting that water go down pipes and so let it flow through turbines). It is renewable, sadly it does not really have good impact on nature..
In reality it works like that that on the day when energy is low priced we import energy from france and use it to pump up water to our dams and when energy is high priced we produce it by letting the water down again. Result: you don't really produce a lot netto energy but you make a lot of money and swiss people often use "dirty" energy as well, for example from coal energy plants in europe (switzerland does not have any of their own afaik) on times of high energy need. I am sure we Swiss also have lots of progress to make.
(edited)
Well the whole global warming dilemma is a tricky one. I am not sure if we would be able to stop it now even if we tried. I mean there are not only huge sums of CO2 in our water/oceans that would make it hard to actually reduce CO2 in athmosphere once a level is reached, but there are also other aspects contributing to the dilemma. For example the loss of forests/rain forests (and thus less plants that will make O2 out of CO2), the aspect of animals and methane (methane is even worse than CO2 for global warming (well in same concentrations that is), it is getting produced by animals like cows) and the aspect of global warming and methane from crust of the earth (there are theories that higher temperature will set free more methane from earth crust - for example in permafrost regions).
Atm we are like a child playing with red buttons we have no idea what they will cause. Hopefully we will be lucky..
About Switzerland.. actually we have 5 nuclear plants. there u go. They plan to shut some of them down since years, but they usually just carry on anyway. There are actually plans for building of more blocks in those we have - what would be almost the same as building new nuclear plants (extention planned in: Beznau, Gösgen and Mühleberg). Not a big problem, because our regulations are some of the strictest in europe while the rules (for example in France) seem to be a lot less strict.
We still get most of our energy from water power though (you know that ugly dams in the mountains that contain water. The energy is produced by letting that water go down pipes and so let it flow through turbines). It is renewable, sadly it does not really have good impact on nature..
In reality it works like that that on the day when energy is low priced we import energy from france and use it to pump up water to our dams and when energy is high priced we produce it by letting the water down again. Result: you don't really produce a lot netto energy but you make a lot of money and swiss people often use "dirty" energy as well, for example from coal energy plants in europe (switzerland does not have any of their own afaik) on times of high energy need. I am sure we Swiss also have lots of progress to make.
(edited)
thought nuclear plants dont cause CO2 emissons, they can just pose a threat for the atmosphere if radioactive pollution is 'accidentally' poured into seas or other ecosystems, so their feed-backs cycles are altered.
a bonfire cause more CO2 emissions than a nuclear plant
a bonfire cause more CO2 emissions than a nuclear plant
yes I know, that was just an answer to manhill one side back that painted a too good picture of energy in switzerland one page back :)
Thanks for correcting me, I wasn't really that sure about the nuclear plants. As for the water power plants, I allready saw one working exactly that way. Pretty ugly, but still useful.