Allianz, the largest insurance company in Germany is against solar panels on homes. This is because of their being a hazard during fires, complicating the fire department’s work, and from unknown unknowns they introduce. They may also spew toxic chemicals during a fire.
Most schools have different roofs so that part of these issues is different. However, there is still the risk of solar panels in fires. In addition, solar panels attract lightening according to one source in China. This may be worse on school roofs because there are not as many tall trees next to school buildings as there are next to homes.
Solar panels can be put on the ground in the country and the power transmitted. Power transmission is a well established technology.
Certificates in the solar panels can be sold to customers of the power company or others or schools. This avoids the problems of homeowners or schools dealing with this complex technology. Solar panels have to be disposed of according to environmental laws. This requires record keeping to document the toxic chemicals in the solar panels.
Total Factor Productivity bonds could help fund the start up costs of these solar panel farms in the country. Wind power can be covered with them as well. Then the Fed QE TFP could purchase these bonds.
Vendors have to pay high borrowing costs. So it would be better to use the TFP bond market to fund the start up costs of solar panel farms or wind farms. Then the Fed can buy those bonds in its QE TFP program.
The vendors are a high cost of funds for start up costs of purchasing and installing solar panels. Moving that start up funding to TFP bonds would lower the cost of funds for this technology. Putting it in the country on the ground also lowers the cost. Lowering costs raises total factor productivity. So it is a logical investment for TFP bonds.
When selling a home, solar panels can make it harder to sell. This would be avoided by putting solar panels in the country. This would keep housing prices up. That will produce more potential tax revenue for the schools. Some of the cost savings could be given back to homeowners in the form of lower taxes. Homeowners should not have to pay for the high cost of borrowing of solar panel vendors or high profit margins solar panel vendors need to show a big return on investment to their investors. Solar panel vendors are not an efficient use of homeowner tax dollars. The bond market can fund these start up solar panel costs at lower cost to taxpayers.
Even if it is very small, there is a risk that solar panels leaking on school roofs could produce problems. The reaction to a single case of birth defects or child development harm from it might require an expensive clean up or even the loss of use of school buildings for a time. We saw from covid this can impose a big burden on student development. This may be a very small risk, but it is also a known unknown.
We can at least ask the solar panel vendors what information they have. We can ask how they test panels to make sure they don’t leak. Is the testing just on new panels, or do they test on old panels? What about panels they develop defects, holes, fractures after long exposure to weather? Is there a protocol of when to remove a solar panel because it has developed a fracture or flaw? What is that protocol? Is it based on testing? On experience studies of old panels?
How much actual testing on panels exposed to the elements for a long time has been done? Are these panels well understood? Are there published papers on them? How much is published on studies of solar panel leaking after years of exposure to the elements? Of behavior in fires after years of exposure? How often are solar panels replaced because of exposure? How many years do they last in practice before being replaced? Do vendors have records? Are there published studies?
If the worst came to pass on toxic chemical leaks from solar panels, it could be a problem when combined with underfunded teacher and school pensions. Solar panel toxic chemical leaks might be the last straw in trying to balance school financing. So they might undermine teacher and school pensions. We need to avoid that. When a new technology is to be deployed for decades of use and exposure, we have a right and duty to ask questions. This includes dumb questions or questions that seem obvious to others. It may seem to some that solar panels don’t leak because they are sealed so asking questions is dumb. But that is not really proof. It also is not what we want to teach in schools. We want to teach students to persist in asking questions to try to find out the answers on an evidence based track. Ridiculing questions or people who have concerns is not evidence based regulation.
If solar panels don’t leak the toxic chemicals, then someone had to engineer it. They had to design it not to leak the toxic chemicals and then test it. So there should be a paper trail showing that process. I have not found it from my reading. Maybe the vendors and manufacturers have their own trade secrets and don’t want to say. But we can still ask.
