XPost: alt.home.repair, uk.d-i-y, alt.sci.physics   
   From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com   
      
   "devnull"  wrote in message   
   news:LYqKE.3166$wk6.741@fx42.iad...   
   > On 6/6/19 11:09 PM, Rod Speed wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> "Bob F"  wrote in message   
   >> news:qdcjrs$ini$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> That’s not one house owner paying for the panels on a neighbours house.   
      
   > The US does it with healthcare and many other things.   
      
   But not with houses and solar panels, for a reason.   
      
   > Taxpayers are forced to pay for the lazy welfare democrat's medical   
   > expenses.   
      
   Corse there are never ever any lazy repugs with medical expenses, or vets   
   etc eh ?   
      
   Or repug businesses or farmers etc.   
      
   > Taxpayers are also forced to pay for unwed welfare mom's 6 kids.   
      
   And for all those grunts fucking over various foreign countrys.   
      
   > And if the socialist democrats like Ocasio-Kotex get their way, taxpayers   
   > will really get hosed.   
      
   They already are, to pay for all those grunts fucking over all those foreign   
   countrys.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)