XPost: alt.home.repair, uk.d-i-y, alt.sci.physics   
   From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com   
      
   "Commander Kinsey"  wrote in message   
   news:op.z2zkuibgwdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...   
   > On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 23:57:41 +0100, Rod Speed    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> "Commander Kinsey"  wrote in message   
   >> news:op.z2zgydx2wdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> Problem is the cost of that.   
   >   
   > If it costs more to install them than you gain,   
      
   It likely didn't at the time they did it, before the bribe stopped.   
      
   > why put any in at all?   
      
   Indeed.   
      
   >>> And so what if you generate more than the house uses?   
   >>   
   >> You've obviously wasted your money.   
   >   
   > The national grid buys it.   
      
   But pays fuck all for it once the bribe is gone.   
      
   >>> There are houses that don't generate anything.  And once we all use   
   >>> electric cars, we'll need a hell of a lot more.   
   >>   
   >> But it makes a lot more sense to use nukes for that.   
   >   
   > Then why have solar at all?   
      
   Because they are too stupid to do what makes sense.   
      
   But also the house owner can do solar panels, but not a personal nuke.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   >> But that approach isnt viable. No one is going to   
   >> pay for the cost of doing it on someone else's roof.   
      
   > Some folk want solar because they're "green"   
      
   Yep, some are that stupid but that's unlikely to be the   
   reason all those houses have solar panels unless some   
   fool greeny is the designer/builder of those houses.   
      
   > or think they can make money out of it,   
      
   They could before the bribes stopped.   
      
   > some won't want it at all.  Makes sense to have some houses each way.   
      
   Clearly that operation chose not to do it that way.   
      
   Sam with the rain water catchments.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)