XPost: alt.home.repair, uk.d-i-y, alt.sci.physics   
   From: CFKinsey@military.org.jp   
      
   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, why put any in at all?   
      
   >> And so what if you generate more than the house uses?   
   >   
   > You've obviously wasted your money.   
      
   The national grid buys it.   
      
   >> 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?   
      
   >> 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" or think they can make money out   
   of it, some won't want it at all.  Makes sense to have some houses each way.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)