C
Commander Kinsey
Guest
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?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
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.
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 <trader4@optonline.net> 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 <usenet@andyburns.uk> 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.
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.
They do have large solar arrays that are on businesses
or just on acres of land, generating power for the grid.
"trader_4" <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:943fe1dc-72cb-4890-b684-b3aab20b0f99@googlegroups.com...
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 <usenet@andyburns.uk
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.
And he's in scotland which isnt great for solar insulation in winter
or even in summer.
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 5:53:05 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 22:48:40 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
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.
FIT ended (for new installs) 31st March 2019.
I wasn't aware it was a different date for new installs. I tried to get some on my existing house 5 years ago and just missed it.
However, if the bribery had ended, why did they install any at all? Is there some silly regulation saying they have to have a small number?
And these houses would have been completed before 31st March 2019.
You don't even say where this is. The rebates, tax incentives, payments
for electric you generate, vary widely, state by state.
I agree though that a small number doesn't make sense, assuming it's not
enough to cover the energy usage of the house.
Which again gets to where
it's located. If it's FL and they need heavy AC it's going to be higher
energy needed than someplace more moderate.
"Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote in message
newsp.z2zge2ejwdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 22:48:40 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk
wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
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.
FIT ended (for new installs) 31st March 2019.
I wasn't aware it was a different date for new installs. I tried to get
some on my existing house 5 years ago and just missed it.
However, if the bribery had ended, why did they install any at all?
Likely because it can still be worth doing without the bribe
Is there some silly regulation saying they have to have a small number?
And these houses would have been completed before 31st March 2019.
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 <usenet@andyburns.uk> 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.
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 22:48:40 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk
wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
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.
FIT ended (for new installs) 31st March 2019.
I wasn't aware it was a different date for new installs. I tried to get
some on my existing house 5 years ago and just missed it.
However, if the bribery had ended, why did they install any at all?
Is there some silly regulation saying they have to have a small number?
And these houses would have been completed before 31st March 2019.
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 22:25:56 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk
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.
Commander Kinsey wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
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.
FIT ended (for new installs) 31st March 2019.
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 23:11:50 +0100, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
wrote:
"trader_4" <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:943fe1dc-72cb-4890-b684-b3aab20b0f99@googlegroups.com...
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 <usenet@andyburns.uk
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.
And he's in scotland which isnt great for solar insulation in winter
or even in summer.
WTF is solar insulation?
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 23:08:06 +0100, trader_4 <trader4@optonline.net
wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 5:53:05 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 22:48:40 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk
wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
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.
FIT ended (for new installs) 31st March 2019.
I wasn't aware it was a different date for new installs. I tried to get
some on my existing house 5 years ago and just missed it.
However, if the bribery had ended, why did they install any at all? Is
there some silly regulation saying they have to have a small number?
And these houses would have been completed before 31st March 2019.
You don't even say where this is. The rebates, tax incentives, payments
for electric you generate, vary widely, state by state.
Sorry I thought you knew I lived in the UK.
I agree though that a small number doesn't make sense, assuming it's not
enough to cover the energy usage of the house.
Irrelevant, you can always make more and it just goes into the grid.
Which again gets to where it's located. If it's FL and they need heavy
AC it's going to be higher energy needed than someplace more moderate.
Irrelevant, you can always make more and it just goes into the grid.
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 23:03:17 +0100, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
wrote:
"Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote in message
newsp.z2zge2ejwdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 22:48:40 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk
wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
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.
FIT ended (for new installs) 31st March 2019.
I wasn't aware it was a different date for new installs. I tried to get
some on my existing house 5 years ago and just missed it.
However, if the bribery had ended, why did they install any at all?
Likely because it can still be worth doing without the bribe
If it's worth installing a few, why isn't it worth installing the full
roof area?
Is there some silly regulation saying they have to have a small number?
And these houses would have been completed before 31st March 2019.
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 22:59:47 +0100, trader_4 <trader4@optonline.net
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 <usenet@andyburns.uk
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.
There are houses that don't generate anything. And once we all use
electric cars, we'll need a hell of a lot more.
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.
Likely because it can still be worth doing without the bribe