XPost: alt.home.repair, uk.d-i-y, alt.sci.physics   
   From: CFKinsey@military.org.jp   
      
   On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 03:46:18 +0100, Bob F  wrote:   
      
   > On 6/6/2019 4:09 PM, Rod Speed wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> "Commander Kinsey"  wrote in message   
   >> news:op.z2zie8cgwdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...   
   >>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 23:12:31 +0100, trader_4    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 6:04:40 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I think in the above you're assuming that you get paid a decent rate on   
   >>>> the excess, which may not be true.  You may only get wholesale rate,   
   >>>> which makes it economically unviable.   
   >>>   
   >>> Surely you'll make at least roughly what you save by making your own   
   >>> for what you use?   
   >>   
   >> Nope, the electricity supplier doesn't pay you anything   
   >> like what you pay them for the electricity.   
   >>   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And do what with the owners?  One owner produces the power, is subject   
   >>>> to the costs and benefits, the other is just another power system   
   >>>> customer.   
   >>>   
   >>> Different people might want it or not.   
   >>   
   >> But the owner of the house with the panels on it may   
   >> well not be able to afford the double panel installation.   
   >>   
   >>>> They do have large solar arrays that are on businesses   
   >>>> or just on acres of land, generating power for the grid.   
   >>   
   >>> Yes I know someone who did that on his farm, filling an entire field,   
   >>> but it was only economically viable because of a subsidy.   
   >   
   > You know this for every supplier in the world?   
      
   Well if you live in the desert maybe you can actually make real money instead   
   of stealing it from the taxpayer.  But in most places, solar panels are next   
   to useless unless you want to charge up a couple of AA batteries.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)