XPost: alt.home.repair, uk.d-i-y, alt.sci.physics
From: CFKinsey@military.org.jp
On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 19:35:53 +0100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
> news:op.z20sopyqwdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...
>> On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 00:09:24 +0100, 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.
>
>> But since usage per house is very variable,
>
> I'm not convinced that it is that variable except in
> the sense that some have a lot more people in them
> than others and some have fools that are actually
> stupid enough to spend the winter in shorts and
> a T shirt when inside their house etc and you
> wouldn't normally do that with the solar panels.
I mean throughout the day. People turn kettles on and off, TVs on and off,
lights on and off, computers on and off, fridges and freezers cycle on and
off. There will be plenty times in he middle of the day with a lot of solar
energy and nowhere to use
it.
>> even a few panels will be giving it to the grid half the time.
>
> Don't buy that in the wilds of scotland in the winter.
But most solar energy is in summer.
>> Virtually nobody uses electricity continuously,
>
> Those who heat the house electrically or use a heat pump do.
Those cycle on and off with a stat.
>> it tends to be in spurts.
>
> Irrelevant to whether twice the size panel would sell houses there.
>
> That's what its about. It looks like those places were 'designed'
> to appeal to stupid greenys without fucking the price too much.
Probably.
>>>>>> 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.
>
>> Fuck all cost compared to the whole house.
>
> But with house prices so high now, most will be finding it
> hard to find someone who will lend them what they need
> to buy the house and so the optional stuff like a double sized
> panel will be what doesn't make the cut to get the loan even
> if it does make economic sense in the long term. I doubt that
> the double sized panel would make economic sense in the
> long term in scotland. Bet it would make more sense to
> out that money into shares instead.
And even more sense to have no panels at all and let the energy get generated
more cheaply on mass in power stations.
>>>>> 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.
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
