XPost: alt.home.repair, uk.d-i-y, alt.sci.physics   
   From: CFKinsey@military.org.jp   
      
   On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 22:59:47 +0100, trader_4  wrote:   
      
   > On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 5:45:33 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 22:25:56 +0100, Andy Burns  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > Commander Kinsey wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> >> I noticed some new houses being built, all with environmental shit, like   
   >> >> solar panels, water reclamation from gutters etc.  But why do they have   
   >> >> only 3 or 4 panels when the roof could hold about 12?   
   >> >   
   >> > Very little incentive to have any at all now that the feed-in/bribery   
   >> > tariff has ended.   
   >>   
   >> That's what I would have thought, but these houses are only a couple of   
   years old.  None I could understand, loads I could understand, but not a few   
   on each roof.   
   >   
   > One factor could be that the output per panel has gone up over   
   > time.  They were ~200W a decade ago, new ones are ~300W.  But still   
   > 3 or 4 would be only 1200W, not even enough to equal what a typical house   
   > uses.   And you'd think that some of the cost is fixed, ie putting in   
   > 12 isn't going to cost 3 times what it costs to put in 4, so if it's   
   > undersized, the economics is worse.   
      
   Agreed - you might aswell make as much use of the roof space as you can.  And   
   so what if you generate more than the house uses?  There are houses that don't   
   generate anything.  And once we all use electric cars, we'll need a hell of a   
   lot more.   
      
   It also seems damn stupid to build an estate of 50 houses and put 1.2kW on   
   each roof, instead of 2.4kW on half the roofs, with a much lower installation   
   cost.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)