Very few solar panels on new houses

[Peeler]

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 14:33:46 +0100, Reentrant, another brain dead,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blathered:


> Are you sure they are solar electric panels?

The only thing he is absolutely sure of in his pathetic wanker's life is
that he can make an appearance on these groups any time he feels like it
and bait the senile participants with the dumbest "questions" that cross
his mind, time and again! <BG>

 

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 07 Jun 2019 16:15:51 +0100, "Commander
Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote:

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, even a few panels will be giving it to the grid half the time. Virtually nobody uses electricity continuously, it tends to be in spurts.

If you want to know, you will have to ask them.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 14:33:46 +0100, Reentrant <reentrant@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

On 06/06/2019 21:35, 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?

Are you sure they are solar electric panels? If there's only 3 or 4 they
are more likely to be solar thermal - ie to heat water directly.

I can see them clearly enough to notice the PV pattern. Thermal ones look entirely different.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 11:25:46 +0100, devnull <devnull@127.0.0.1> wrote:

On 6/6/19 11:09 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote in message news:qdcjrs$ini$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/6/2019 3:57 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote in message newsp.z2zgydx2wdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...
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.

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. Taxpayers are forced to pay for the lazy welfare democrat's medical expenses.

Taxpayers are also forced to pay for unwed welfare mom's 6 kids.

And if the socialist democrats like Ocasio-Kotex get their way, taxpayers will really get hosed.

That thieving shit happens in the UK too. All left wing politicians should be immediately jailed for stealing money. I have no kids, yet pay for the education of others. I never use a library, yet I somehow fund them. I pay for sick people to be repaired, even if I never go to a doctor. This is just plain wrong. I don't object to charities - if you want to give money to charity, do so, but don't force every single person in the country to give money to causes they don't believe in.

 

[Brian Gaff]

Of course by the time the mortgage was paid the panels would be dead and
gone, hopefully replaced by better ones or maybe not needed any more due to
either human race being wiped out or everyone having a fusion reactor at
home.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gltkinFprbhU1@mid.individual.net...

"Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote in message
newsp.z2zh8yb8wdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...
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?

Because when you are buying a new house, you normally have
a problem getting someone to lend you that much money and
even if you can do that, you still have to pay for it eventually.

And when you no longer get bribed to have solar
panels, there is no point in being able to generate
more than you can actually use yourself.

It isnt even worth sizing the panels so they will always
be able to generate what you use yourself in the worst
weather with fuck all solar insulation available, it makes
makes more sense to buy from the grid in those conditions.

Is there some silly regulation saying they have to have a small number?

And these houses would have been completed before 31st March 2019.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 00:03:59 +0100, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote in message
newsp.z2zh8yb8wdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...
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?

Because when you are buying a new house, you normally have
a problem getting someone to lend you that much money and
even if you can do that, you still have to pay for it eventually.

Surely if I buy a new house with solar on the roof, the builder has paid for the panels and it's included in the cost of the house?

And when you no longer get bribed to have solar
panels, there is no point in being able to generate
more than you can actually use yourself.

It isnt even worth sizing the panels so they will always
be able to generate what you use yourself in the worst
weather with fuck all solar insulation available, it makes
makes more sense to buy from the grid in those conditions.

Agreed - so why have any panels on them at all? Clearly the builder decided it was a good idea to have a few, so why not more? Either each panel makes more than it costs, or it doesn't.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

I wonder if the treehuggers have ever worked out how much plastic is involved in creating these useless things. They could perhaps charge up a golf kart, but they certainly don't make a meaningful amount of electricity. Solar panels are for remote areas like Africa, outer space, etc. I once sent some students off to study primates in Africa with a solar panel. It powered a couple of laptops. Not a house.


On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 17:22:44 +0100, Brian Gaff <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Of course by the time the mortgage was paid the panels would be dead and
gone, hopefully replaced by better ones or maybe not needed any more due to
either human race being wiped out or everyone having a fusion reactor at
home.
Brian

 

[Peeler]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 11:52:30 -0400, micky, another brain dead,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blathered again:

giving it to the grid half the time. Virtually nobody uses electricity
continuously, it tends to be in spurts.

If you want to know, you will have to ask them.

No shit, troll-feeding senile idiot! <BG>

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 03:46:18 +0100, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/6/2019 4:09 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote in message
newsp.z2zie8cgwdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 23:12:31 +0100, trader_4 <trader4@optonline.net
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 <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.

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.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 03:44:24 +0100, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/6/2019 4:06 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote in message
newsp.z2zib9yqwdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...
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?

The amount of sun falling on the panels.

Nope. That's insolation.

I wondered WTF he was on about. Insulating a solar panel from the sun is the last thing you want to do. And he says spelling is unimportant....

 

[Rod Speed]

"devnull" <devnull@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:LYqKE.3166$wk6.741@fx42.iad...

On 6/6/19 11:09 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qdcjrs$ini$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/6/2019 3:57 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote in message
newsp.z2zgydx2wdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...
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.

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.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote in message
newsp.z20sopyqwdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 00:09:24 +0100, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote in message
newsp.z2zie8cgwdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 23:12:31 +0100, trader_4 <trader4@optonline.net
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 <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.

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.

> 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.

> Virtually nobody uses electricity continuously,

Those who heat the house electrically or use a heat pump do.

> 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.

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.

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.

 

[%]

On 2019-06-07 11:35 a.m., Rod Speed wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote in message
newsp.z20sopyqwdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...
On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 00:09:24 +0100, Rod Speed
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote in message
newsp.z2zie8cgwdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...
On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 23:12:31 +0100, trader_4 <trader4@optonline.net
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 <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.

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.

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.

Virtually nobody uses electricity continuously,

Those who heat the house electrically or use a heat pump do.

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.

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.

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.

i like how you always know a guy who knows a guy that worked for a guy
who's father's brother did something

 

[Peeler]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 04:35:53 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

But since usage per house is very variable,

I'm not convinced that

Of course not, you ridiculous auto-contradicting senile idiot!

<FLUSH the rest of your usual self-opinionated senile drivel unread again>

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID: <ev1p6ml7ywd5$.dlg@sqwertz.com>

 

[Peeler]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 03:58:18 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

The US does it with healthcare and many other things.

But not with

Of COURSE not, you auto-contradicting senile asshole! LOL

<FLUSH the rest of your usual senile blather unread again>

Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID: <XnsA97071CF43E3Fadmin127001@85.214.115.223>

 

[Rod Speed]

"Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote in message
newsp.z20v37qhwdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 00:03:59 +0100, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
wrote:



"Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote in message
newsp.z2zh8yb8wdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...
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?

Because when you are buying a new house, you normally have
a problem getting someone to lend you that much money and
even if you can do that, you still have to pay for it eventually.

Surely if I buy a new house with solar on the roof, the builder has paid
for the panels and it's included in the cost of the house?

Corse it is, but with twice the panel size, the price of the
house would have to be higher and so fewer would find
someone prepared to lend them the money to buy it,
particularly when the double panel house wouldn't
actually be valued by the bank much if any higher.

And when you no longer get bribed to have solar
panels, there is no point in being able to generate
more than you can actually use yourself.

It isnt even worth sizing the panels so they will always
be able to generate what you use yourself in the worst
weather with fuck all solar insulation available, it makes
makes more sense to buy from the grid in those conditions.

Agreed - so why have any panels on them at all?

Because with the power generated in the best weather that
electricity will in theory cost you less than buying it from the grid.

I havent done the calculations for scotland but it wouldn't
surprise me its actually better to not have any solar panels
and to put that money in shares or a mutual fund instead.
That would likely end up with a better result after say 20 years.

But with those new houses its even more iffy because the
bulk of those buying those houses would have to borrow
the money for the panels.

Clearly the builder decided it was a good idea to have a few, so why not
more?

Looks like that builder decided to have competitive
advantage by having some low cost green shit like
a few solar panels and the rainwater recycling hoping
that there would be enough stupid greenys around
who would buy his houses instead of his competitors
houses and would be too stupid to actually calculate
if it made sense to do the house that way instead of
spending that money on bigger rooms etc.

It would be interesting to see if that approach worked for the
builder and if there are enough stupid greenys that stupid there.

> Either each panel makes more than it costs, or it doesn't.

Its nothing like that simple when the choice is to spend
that money on stupid stuff like solar panels in scotland
or to have a better house like bigger rooms or a decent
double garage for your cars etc.

 

[Rod Speed]

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote

I wonder if the treehuggers have ever worked out how much plastic is
involved in creating these useless things.

Not much with solar panels, its mostly metal and the panels
themselves which don't involve much plastic at all.

They could perhaps charge up a golf kart, but they certainly don't make a
meaningful amount of electricity.

Specially in winter in scotland. They likely would do the lights
and electronics in summer, particularly if they have a decent
battery so that it works once its dark, but given that they
have so few panels, likely they don't have a battery at all.

> Solar panels are for remote areas like Africa, outer space, etc.

They are marginally viable here on houses without any subsidy
or FIT but don't produce as good a return as the stock market
or mutual funds, which is why I don't have any myself.

I once sent some students off to study primates in Africa with a solar
panel. It powered a couple of laptops. Not a house.

We do use them to power quite a bit of stuff like the irrigation gates etc.
And the remote repeaters where it costs lots to run a power line to them.

Couple of the houses here have a pair of massive great tracking arrays and
they would certainly power the house fine but wouldn't have been cheap.
One of those house has a massive great steel fence right around it so that
bugger clearly doesn't have any shortage of money. Bet its marijuana money.

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 17:22:44 +0100, Brian Gaff <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:

Of course by the time the mortgage was paid the panels would be dead and
gone, hopefully replaced by better ones or maybe not needed any more due
to
either human race being wiped out or everyone having a fusion reactor at
home.
Brian

 

[Peeler]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 05:13:38 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Couple of the houses here have a pair of massive great tracking arrays and
they would certainly power the house fine but wouldn't have been cheap.
One of those house has a massive great steel fence right around it so that
bugger clearly doesn't have any shortage of money. Bet its marijuana money.

Telling us more of the stories you saw on TV in your old people's home,
lonely senile Rodent?

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"Shit you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID: <ogoa38$pul$1@news.mixmin.net>

 

[Peeler]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 04:54:34 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH 104 !!! lines of the two prize idiots' endless drivel unread again>

--
Another typical retarded conversation between our two village idiots,
Birdbrain and Rodent Speed:

Birdbrain: "You beat me to it. Plain sex is boring."

Senile Rodent: "Then fuck the cats. That wont be boring."

Birdbrain: "Sell me a de-clawing tool first."

Senile Rodent: "Wont help with the teeth."

Birdbrain: "They've never gone for me with their mouths."

Rodent Speed: "They will if you are stupid enough to try fucking them."

Birdbrain: "No, they always use claws."

Rodent Speed: "They wont if you try fucking them. Try it and see."

Message-ID: <g3cjf7FavtgU1@mid.individual.net>

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 20:13:38 +0100, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Commander Kinsey <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote

I wonder if the treehuggers have ever worked out how much plastic is
involved in creating these useless things.

Not much with solar panels, its mostly metal and the panels
themselves which don't involve much plastic at all.

Metal frame, but the main part is surely plastic? Or is it glass? That would be rather fragile.

They could perhaps charge up a golf kart, but they certainly don't make a
meaningful amount of electricity.

Specially in winter in scotland. They likely would do the lights
and electronics in summer, particularly if they have a decent
battery so that it works once its dark, but given that they
have so few panels, likely they don't have a battery at all.

Solar panels are for remote areas like Africa, outer space, etc.

They are marginally viable here on houses without any subsidy
or FIT but don't produce as good a return as the stock market
or mutual funds, which is why I don't have any myself.

Way more efficient to have huge arrays of panels on farms etc.

I once sent some students off to study primates in Africa with a solar
panel. It powered a couple of laptops. Not a house.

We do use them to power quite a bit of stuff like the irrigation gates etc.
And the remote repeaters where it costs lots to run a power line to them.

Couple of the houses here have a pair of massive great tracking arrays and
they would certainly power the house fine but wouldn't have been cheap.
One of those house has a massive great steel fence right around it so that
bugger clearly doesn't have any shortage of money. Bet its marijuana money.

And the problem with that would be?