XPost: alt.home.repair, uk.d-i-y, alt.sci.physics
From: bobnospam@gmail.com
On 6/6/2019 3:57 PM, 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.
>
>> And so what if you generate more than the house uses?
>
> You've obviously wasted your money.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
Tell that to the companies that do exactly that.
"free solar panels
If you’ve been shopping around for a solar panel system, you’ve probably
heard at least one company advertise ‘free solar panels’ – that they
will install a solar energy system on your roof for free. But, much as
with anything, remember that there is no such thing as a free lunch (or
a free solar panel).
Free solar panels pure energies
Examples of companies advertising ‘free solar panels’
Decoding the sales pitch: The term ‘free solar panels’ is sometimes used
to advertise solar lease or solar power purchase agreements (PPAs).
Under both types of arrangements, a company will put solar panels on
your roof for no money up-front, but will charge you for the electricity
that they produce.
Most offers will save you money but not all of them, so make sure you’ve
thoroughly compared all your options. Also consider buying the solar
panels or financing them with a zero-down solar loan.
free solar panels
What do companies mean when they say free solar panels?
So what do a company’s marketers and salespeople mean when they say
‘free solar panels’? Usually, they are referring to solar leases and
power purchase agreements (PPA’s). Under these solar financing
arrangements, a solar company will put a solar system on your roof at no
up-front cost to you. This sounds great – you get to say that your home
is powered by clean energy, and can even point to the solar panels on
your roof to prove it.
But the reality is that you do not technically own the system, and the
solar energy the panels produce is not free. Under solar lease
agreements, ownership is retained by the solar company, and you pay for
the electricity it produces. In essence, the company has built a small
power plant on your roof and is selling you the electricity."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
