Very few solar panels on new houses

[%]

On 2019-06-07 1:00 p.m., Commander Kinsey wrote:

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?

it's DOPE

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 19:54:34 +0100, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

"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.

If I was the builder I would have covered some roofs completely and put none on others. Different sorts of folk would buy each home.

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.

2 days a year in Scotland then.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Agreed again.

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.

Good point.

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

All those houses sold very quickly compared to other schemes. I don't know what the price of the homes was though.

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.

Way too many new houses being built around here without enough drive space. Cars parked on the bloody street in the way of everyone. In fact a woman I know had her brand new Ł30K car smashed up because she parked it very badly taking up two spaces, which were shared for the whole street. Someone put bricks through every single window. Her insurance refused to pay out the full amount, said it was her own fault!

 

[Bob F]

On 6/6/2019 8:09 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.

So what? That is clearly someone who wants to pay for solar panels on
someone else's house.

 

[Bob F]

On 6/7/2019 3:25 AM, devnull 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.
And Repugs NEVER accept socialist medicare or social security, or drive

on socialist public roads, or call the socialist fire department?
And REPUGS never use socialist public courts to solve their
disagreements or to take over private property for their oil pipelines?

Why do you clowns never protest corporate socialism? It is running rampant.

 

[Rod Speed]

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

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?

Nope.

> Or is it glass? That would be rather fragile.

Even you should have noticed that windows and greenhouses work fine.

https://www.solar-facts.com/panels/panel-construction.php

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.

And its just more mindless greeny virtue signalling.

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.

Not necessarily. That stops you mostly using the
power you generate yourself like harry does.

Those big farm arrays make no sense in a place like scotland or england.

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.

This is the big mostly brown patch with the house in the corner of that
land.
https://www.google.com/maps/@-34.2597719,146.0238333,617m/data=!3m1!1e3

> And the problem with that would be?

The problems with what ? Flouting that law if your mean marijuana money.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote in message
newsp.z207q6cnwdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 19:54:34 +0100, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
wrote:



"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.

If I was the builder I would have covered some roofs completely and put
none on others.

And that's why you'd go broke as a builder.

> Different sorts of folk would buy each home.

Fuck all would be able to find anyone to lend them
enough to buy the houses with their roof completely
covered by panels, because the bank valuation of that
place would be way less than price you would have
to charge to make a profit on the sale of that house.

And you would sell a lot more of the houses that
had that money spent on a bigger house instead.

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.

2 days a year in Scotland then.

Its not quite that bad in summer.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Agreed again.

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.

Good point.

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

All those houses sold very quickly compared to other schemes.

All that shows is that there are enough stupid greenys that
want to 'live' in that soggy frigid gloomy part of scotland.

> don't know what the price of the homes was though.

That should be visible using google. Post an address.

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.

Way too many new houses being built around here without enough drive
space.

Not just drive space either, useless garages too.
Most of ours are doubles, quite a few are triples.
The place we bought has a very decent sized garage
and an immense carport that you can put 8 cars in easily.

The stupid tenants park in the ample driveway in front
of it which has plenty of space for 4 and that's without
stacking any behind another so anyone can leave easily.
And it's a very decent sized house too. 3 bed 2 bath.
https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-house-nsw-griffith-122468950

Cars parked on the bloody street in the way of everyone. In fact a woman
I know had her brand new Ł30K car smashed up because she parked it very
badly taking up two spaces, which were shared for the whole street.
Someone put bricks through every single window. Her insurance refused to
pay out the full amount, said it was her own fault!

Interesting, the insurance couldn't get away with that here.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qdeih2$461$1@dont-email.me...

On 6/6/2019 8:09 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.


So what?

It isnt what was being discussed.

That is clearly someone who wants to pay for solar panels on someone
else's house.

But is nothing like what is being discussed with new houses.

 

[Peeler]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 09:51:50 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH yet more of the inevitable bullshit spouted by the two clinically
insane idiots>

--
Another retarded "conversation" between Birdbrain and senile Rodent:

Senile Rodent: " Did you ever dig a hole to bury your own shit?"

Birdbrain: "I do if there's no flush toilet around."

Senile Rodent: "Yeah, I prefer camping like that, off by myself with
no dunnys around and have always buried the shit."

MID: <fv66kaFml0nU2@mid.individual.net>

 

[Peeler]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 10:20:45 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH another 170 !!! lines of the two prize idiots' endless bullshit
unread>

--
Typical retarded "conversation" between the Scottish wanker and the senile
Ozzietard:

Birdbrain: "Horse shit doesn't stink."

Senile Rodent: "It does if you roll in it."

Birdbrain: "I've never worked out why, I assumed it was maybe meateaters
that made stinky shit, but then why does vegetarian human shit stink? Is it
just the fact that we're capable of digesting meat?"

Senile Rodent: "Nope, some cow shit stinks too."

Message-ID: <fv5f1tFi3f2U1@mid.individual.net>

 

[Peeler]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 10:26:28 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



> It isnt

LOL

But is nothing

LOL

In auto-contradicting mode again, you clinically insane auto-contradicting
senile pest?

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

 

[Daniel60]

Commander Kinsey wrote on 8/06/2019 4:04 AM:
> On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 03:46:18 +0100, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

<Snip>

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.

No farm, just a normal 3 bedroom house with 20 solar panels that I
installed about two years ago costing about $4,500.00.

Last month, being the start of Winter, i.e. lower sunlight levels, my
Solar rebate (after any power I might have used during the day) was
$21.49, so, even at this low sunlight rate, I'd repay the panel costs in
about 17.5 years.

O.K., I'd have not earned interest on that $4,500 for that time, but,
then again, I'd have been getting 'free' daylight power myself for that
time!!

Taking into account the greater quantity of power I will(/have) be
generating during Summer, that pay-back time would be reduced (to,
maybe, 10 years'ish!!).

Just saying!!
--
Daniel

 

[Daniel60]

Rod Speed wrote on 8/06/2019 4:35 AM:

"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:

<Snip>

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.

$500,000 - $1Million - and up for a house! $2,500 - $5,000 - and up for
Solar Panels!

Sure, that's going to be the deciding factor in buying a House!! .... *NOT*
--
Daniel

 

[Daniel60]

Rod Speed wrote on 7/06/2019 9:09 AM:
> "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote in message

<Snip>

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 I didn't spend $Millions of Dollars installing a string of poles to
get power from Yallourn to my place when the panels are not producing
power either!!

As it is, I'm guessing the Electricity Suppliers are paying me a heck of
a lot more for my excess power than it would cost them to produce ....
they pay me roughly the same (if not the exact same) as they charge my
next door neighbour to consume "their" power!!

--
Daniel

 

[Teresa Maynot]

On 6/9/19 5:28 AM, Daniel60 wrote:

Rod Speed wrote on 8/06/2019 4:35 AM:
"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:

Snip

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.

$500,000 - $1Million - and up for a house! $2,500 - $5,000 - and up for Solar Panels!

Sure, that's going to be the deciding factor in buying a House!! .... *NOT*

Please enlighten us where we can buy a useful solar panel system for $2500 - $5000 or did you drop a zero?

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Peeler]

On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 19:01:28 +1000, Daniel60, "another" Australian, mentally
deficient, troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered:

> Just saying!!

Nope, senile Ozzietard, you are just feeding the troll, you miserable idiot!

 

[rbowman]

On 6/9/2019 3:01 AM, Daniel60 wrote:

Last month, being the start of Winter, i.e. lower sunlight levels, my
Solar rebate (after any power I might have used during the day) was
$21.49, so, even at this low sunlight rate, I'd repay the panel costs in
about 17.5 years.

Assuming the output of the panels doesn't drop too drastically.
Depending on the panel you might be down to 80% by then.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 00:05:52 +0100, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote in message
newsp.z2ziatlkwdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...
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.

But when you are paid fuck all for what goes into the grid
it makes no sense to be paying a lot more for the panels.

It also makes no sense to have any at all. Unless you're an unusual person who constantly consumes a small amount of power, you'll often be selling the 1kW to the grid anyway, as it's nearer midday when you get more sun, and that's when you're probably out.

Spotted something else there today: heat pumps! Never seen one installed in the UK before. The tories are planning on banning gas boilers installed in new homes soon, but I didn't think that had taken effect yet. They look quite fancy, piping going into several parts of the house, presumably to individually heat or cool rooms.

I also saw illogical paving slabs, which I've seen elsewhere before: like this cheap shit: http://northwalesblockpaving.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IMG_1912.jpg
But for no reason, some of them were sliced diagonally across, making two triangular slabs. I could understand that if there was a start of a slope, so the slabs needed to "bend", but there wasn't.

Also noticed what I think is some silly legislation - every front door was accessible without going up steps. Are 100% of house buyers now disabled or something?

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 10:01:28 +0100, Daniel60 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote on 8/06/2019 4:04 AM:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 03:46:18 +0100, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

Snip

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.

No farm, just a normal 3 bedroom house with 20 solar panels that I
installed about two years ago costing about $4,500.00.

Last month, being the start of Winter, i.e. lower sunlight levels, my
Solar rebate (after any power I might have used during the day) was
$21.49, so, even at this low sunlight rate, I'd repay the panel costs in
about 17.5 years.

O.K., I'd have not earned interest on that $4,500 for that time, but,
then again, I'd have been getting 'free' daylight power myself for that
time!!

Taking into account the greater quantity of power I will(/have) be
generating during Summer, that pay-back time would be reduced (to,
maybe, 10 years'ish!!).

Just saying!!

I wouldn't buy something that took 10 years to break even. Ever heard of an ISA?

 

[Frank]

On 6/9/2019 10:50 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jun 2019 10:01:28 +0100, Daniel60
daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote on 8/06/2019 4:04 AM:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 03:46:18 +0100, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

Snip

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.

No farm, just a normal 3 bedroom house with 20 solar panels that I
installed about two years ago costing about $4,500.00.

Last month, being the start of Winter, i.e. lower sunlight levels, my
Solar rebate (after any power I might have used during the day) was
$21.49, so, even at this low sunlight rate, I'd repay the panel costs in
about 17.5 years.

O.K., I'd have not earned interest on that $4,500 for that time, but,
then again, I'd have been getting 'free' daylight power myself for that
time!!

Taking into account the greater quantity of power I will(/have) be
generating during Summer, that pay-back time would be reduced (to,
maybe, 10 years'ish!!).

Just saying!!

I wouldn't buy something that took 10 years to break even.  Ever heard
of an ISA?
Beside you probably don't have 10 years left to live.

 

[Rod Speed]

"Daniel60" <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote in message
news:qdijfa$aqa$1@dont-email.me...

Rod Speed wrote on 8/06/2019 4:35 AM:
"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:

Snip

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.

$500,000 - $1Million - and up for a house! $2,500 - $5,000 - and up for
Solar Panels!

Sure, that's going to be the deciding factor in buying a House!! ....
*NOT*

Never said it would be the deciding factor, JUST that it may well
make more sense to spend that $2,500 - $5,000 on something
else in the house in scotland.