• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Why doesn't every house have solar installed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have them on my house, 6.6kw of panels, 5kw inverter. I spent over an hour a few months ago running the numbers extensively and it has paid for itself in less than 3 years since installation in 2019.

My only regret is not doing it sooner.

Yeah, same here matey.
6.6kw in panels and 5kw Fronius inverter.
Cost just over 5k Aud back in 2017.
I went with 6.6kw worth of panels as I was told you lose power through efficiency so the 5kw inverter is always topped up, plus over a 5kw inverter you dont get the rebate per kw back to the grid. Im getting $0.07 per kw back to grid.
More panels also helps out on cloudy days.
 
It's going to make more sense or less sense depending on how close you live to the equator is the simplest way to answer the question of why. Do you want to wipe off your solar panels every snow storm!? What if it's more of a ice sleet storm? Then you need to as well consider how effectiveness based on how much sunlight you get in your region in the first place. A heats pump is something more homes could install at pretty low cost and better than not doing anything. Beyond that just being smarter in the summer months with opening and closing windows. Close them during the day and open them at night work pretty well in the NE. It hasn't really even warmed up consistently enough to bother with that much at this point here, but we're getting closer and closer to a point where it's unavoidable if you want to cool things down a bit at night and lock down the fort during the day to keep the heat out.

It'll eventually with more innovation and better pricing make more sense to adopt regardless of where you live though. I don't think we're quite there yet though depending on where you live and you're probably just as well doing other things to not waste as much power in the first place or like better insulate your home. It's mostly August and July where AC feels hard to avoid from a comfort level here. It's pretty manageable until it gets unsettling sweltering hot and humid. As far as solar goes though it's not just the cost of the panels and installation, but batteries are another factor both in terms of how much energy it can store and cost to do so. Battery life also is worse in colder weather so there is that to contend with to. The answer is similar as to why people aren't building windmills in places with little or no wind. AI if we're lucky might figure out ingenious solutions to tackle these pressing issues in due time. I mean it would be less of a cost issue if we didn't have billionaires and more money to go around so that's my answer. Who really needs a billion dollars? I do for solar panels that's who.
 
Some of us can barely pay bills to afford solar even. And the greedy MF's who run the electric company keep increasing the bills so you can never catch up.
 
Nem 3 really screwed us out in California if I had purchased mine out of pocket it would take 8-10 years to break even. If you dont factor in tax credits which not everyone makes enough to take full advantage of.


that's still 20-30 years of profit assuming no hailstorm damages it. that's not horrible imo. maybe even 30 years.

California is a good example of the top down, tax incentives to move that way is pretty smart imo.

Price talk in the US seems absolutely crazy to me, my system was on the cheaper side, but was $2,795 AUD in 2019, with higher end going for $4-6k at the time, up to the skies the limit of you want to go crazy big, but 6.6/5kw (panels/inverter as you're allowed to oversize panels relative to inverter by 33%) is the max size you can put on residential properties and still get a tariff for feeding in power to the grid. $20k++ USD seems absolutely bonkers to me.

in redneck land where I live in USA, you can do it for about 8 grand out of pocket if you do the labor yourself, depends how big your roof is of course. I have watched several videos on how to do it, there is one guy down the road from me who did it himself, has 3 panels on his garage, pretty cool.

@Dr. Dro I understand all of that regarding the pollution, none the less they are going to keep making them, just as they keep making motherboards, monitors, and cell phones, all of which use horrible minerals too that have terrible ethical implications. there is no easy answer on these things. its out of my control is really the only answer. I'm still not convinced it's as bad as people say, lot of the videos I have seen are of these giant sized mega trucks where the tire is bigger than my house, and the dude driving it makes 6 figures a year as he takes the rare minerals to be processed. i know there are bad parts too, I have seen some of that, I just don't know how widespread that part is vs the legit parts.

Some of us can barely pay bills to afford solar even. And the greedy MF's who run the electric company keep increasing the bills so you can never catch up.

I mean you live in Florida, solar panels are probably a bad idea there considering the weather / lack of house insurance options. also, that is kind of the point of this thread, I can't afford solar panels either, that's why the original title of this thread was "The worst mistake we made as a species was not getting solar panels on every homes roof" but the mods changed it without asking me, so I don't know what to tell you. (also same reason I mentioned the Covid money in my original post... 7 trillion bucks spent like it was nothing... and we gained basically nothing from that as Covid had already wiped out the nursing homes and that was where 90% of the deaths came from...) we are hemorrhaging every chance we get to save this planet, its pretty damn sad imo.

edit: for clarification, in Keynesian Economics (which USA is run by usually) you don't just hemorrhage money without getting long term economic benefits, this is called public works - in this example the great public works project would have been building solar panel factories (I mentioned in my original post Nevada, because of the ability to build solar panels off of solar panel energy, as many factories there already run off solar fields, so it would be a win win)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, same here matey.
6.6kw in panels and 5kw Fronius inverter.
Cost just over 5k Aud back in 2017.
I went with 6.6kw worth of panels as I was told you lose power through efficiency so the 5kw inverter is always topped up, plus over a 5kw inverter you dont get the rebate per kw back to the grid. Im getting $0.07 per kw back to grid.
More panels also helps out on cloudy days.

Now that I think of it, it really strikes me as rather insane how small is the power generation capacity of these solar devices. If I had your system installed here, it would at best cushion our power consumption from the grid. Everything in my household is electric, except for the LPG gas-powered cooktop. My previous estimate of 44 months to pay off the system at $800/mo would only be valid if the solar panels could fulfill the household's entire power load and then some.

My shower alone is a 240 V/7800 W appliance, and sometimes there are two of those on at the same time in here. Still have a good laugh with ElectroBoom's classic video on these things :laugh:


@Dr. Dro I understand all of that regarding the pollution, none the less they are going to keep making them, just as they keep making motherboards, monitors, and cell phones, all of which use horrible minerals too that have terrible ethical implications. there is no easy answer on these things. its out of my control is really the only answer. I'm still not convinced it's as bad as people say, lot of the videos I have seen are of these giant sized mega trucks where the tire is bigger than my house, and the dude driving it makes 6 figures a year as he takes the rare minerals to be processed. i know there are bad parts too, I have seen some of that, I just don't know how widespread that part is vs the legit parts.

I mean, true, it's not going to disappear and the tech will improve over time. But as it stands, it's still far too rudimentary and low-capacity to be a must-have, IMO. We will need far more efficient panels to bring most households off-grid and/or have them contribute to the pool of available energy.
 
Upfront costs and long time to break even are the main deterrents where I'm at. I do see more and more every year (heck, my neighbour directly across the street just got solar installed earlier this year), but adoption in general seems to be pretty slow.
 
it's still far too rudimentary and low-capacity to be a must-have

Here in Perth, Western Australia it's a must. Prob one of the sunniest states in the world. Every man and his dog has it. Hell, one of the builders I work for supply solar with the house and land packages. They are selling them before a 'For Sale' sign even has a chance of going up. In saying that we are in a bad market here where any house for sale atm is pretty much sold instantaneously.

Edit: This is my inverters production back in 2018. Now times it by 6 to get to 2024 ;)

2018.png
 
Last edited:
Now that I think of it, it really strikes me as rather insane how small is the power generation capacity of these solar devices. If I had your system installed here, it would at best cushion our power consumption from the grid. Everything in my household is electric, except for the LPG gas-powered cooktop. My previous estimate of 44 months to pay off the system at $800/mo would only be valid if the solar panels could fulfill the household's entire power load and then some.

My shower alone is a 240 V/7800 W appliance, and sometimes there are two of those on at the same time in here. Still have a good laugh with ElectroBoom's classic video on these things :laugh:




I mean, true, it's not going to disappear and the tech will improve over time. But as it stands, it's still far too rudimentary and low-capacity to be a must-have, IMO. We will need far more efficient panels to bring most households off-grid and/or have them contribute to the pool of available energy.

your shower takes 7000+ watts to run?!?!?! wtf.... we have a heated water tank, but its natural gas to heat that. also natural gas to heat our home. efficient air conditioner in summer - and 9 watt LED bulbs light the house. only luxury electric items are the air fryer, fridge, and gaming PC (oven is also natural gas)

Here is Perth, Western Australia it's a must. Prob one of the sunniest states in the world. Every man and his dog has it. Hell, one of the builders I work for supply solar with the house and land packages. They are selling them before a 'For Sale' sign even has a chance of going up. In saying that we are in a bad market here where any house for sale atm is pretty much sold instantaneously.

makes sense for that area, its good to hear people have common sense based on geo-location
 
Here is Perth, Western Australia it's a must. Prob one of the sunniest states in the world. Every man and his dog has it. Hell, one of the builders I work for supply solar with the house and land packages. They are selling them before a 'For Sale' sign even has a chance of going up. In saying that we are in a bad market here where any house for sale atm is pretty much sold instantaneously.

Edit: This is my inverters production back in 2018. Now times it by 6 to get to 2024 ;)

View attachment 351655

Pretty sunny here too, but still wouldn't come even close to breaking even for us :(

your shower takes 7000+ watts to run?!?!?! wtf.... we have a heated water tank, but its natural gas to heat that. also natural gas to heat our home. efficient air conditioner in summer - and 9 watt LED bulbs light the house. only luxury electric items are the air fryer, fridge, and gaming PC (oven is also natural gas)

Yep. There are even stronger shower heads with up to 8800 W of power afaik, but they are not very common. Mine's on the stronger end, they are usually around 6500 W most of the time. This is assuming they are 240 V models, the ones that run on 127 V have amperage requirements blown through the roof and usually do not go above 5400 W. The current is extremely high.

There is a dedicated breaker just for the shower itself, separate from the rest of the installation.
 
Pretty sunny here too, but still wouldn't come even close to breaking even for us :(



Yep. There are even stronger shower heads with up to 8800 W of power afaik, but they are not very common. Mine's on the stronger end, they are usually around 6500 W most of the time. This is assuming they are 240 V models, the ones that run on 127 V have amperage requirements blown through the roof and usually do not go above 5400 W. The current is extremely high.

There is a dedicated breaker just for the shower itself, separate from the rest of the installation.

That's a lot of kilowatts to clean your balls....
 
Pretty sunny here too, but still wouldn't come even close to breaking even for us :(



Yep. There are even stronger shower heads with up to 8800 W of power afaik, but they are not very common. Mine's on the stronger end, they are usually around 6500 W most of the time. This is assuming they are 240 V models, the ones that run on 127 V have amperage requirements blown through the roof and usually do not go above 5400 W. The current is extremely high.

There is a dedicated breaker just for the shower itself, separate from the rest of the installation.

I'm actually really curious now, how much does it cost in USD (if you don't mind doing the math and currency conversion) to take say a 7 minute long hot shower there?

In summer time I actually have no issue taking cold showers, its invigorating after being outside in the heat. In winter I need a hot shower though.

chatgpt says it only costs 15 cents total... so that's not right... thanks for nothing AI..

here is the prompt I gave chatgpt:

Assuming you have a shower head that uses 8000 watts of power, how much would it cost to take a hot shower for 7 minutes in rio de janero brazil, then convert the currency to USD.

and here is the answer:

To calculate the cost of taking a hot shower for 7 minutes in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, we need to follow these steps:

1. **Determine the energy consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh)**:
- Power consumption of the shower head: 8000 watts (8 kW).
- Duration of the shower: 7 minutes.
- Convert minutes to hours: 7 minutes = 7/60 hours.

2. **Calculate the energy consumption**:
\[
\text{Energy Consumption} = \text{Power (kW)} \times \text{Time (hours)}
\]
\[
\text{Energy Consumption} = 8 \text{ kW} \times \frac{7}{60} \text{ hours} = \frac{56}{60} \text{ kWh} \approx 0.9333 \text{ kWh}
\]

3. **Find the cost of electricity in Rio de Janeiro**:
- The cost of electricity in Rio de Janeiro is approximately BRL 0.80 per kWh.

4. **Calculate the cost in BRL**:
\[
\text{Cost in BRL} = \text{Energy Consumption} \times \text{Cost per kWh}
\]
\[
\text{Cost in BRL} = 0.9333 \text{ kWh} \times 0.80 \text{ BRL/kWh} = 0.74664 \text{ BRL}
\]

5. **Convert the cost from BRL to USD**:
- The exchange rate is approximately 1 BRL = 0.20 USD (this rate can fluctuate, so it might be different at the time of calculation).

6. **Calculate the cost in USD**:
\[
\text{Cost in USD} = \text{Cost in BRL} \times \text{Exchange Rate}
\]
\[
\text{Cost in USD} = 0.74664 \text{ BRL} \times 0.20 \text{ USD/BRL} = 0.14933 \text{ USD}
\]

Therefore, taking a 7-minute hot shower in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil would cost approximately USD 0.15.
 
Yeah, same here matey.
6.6kw in panels and 5kw Fronius inverter.
Cost just over 5k Aud back in 2017.
I went with 6.6kw worth of panels as I was told you lose power through efficiency so the 5kw inverter is always topped up, plus over a 5kw inverter you dont get the rebate per kw back to the grid. Im getting $0.07 per kw back to grid.
More panels also helps out on cloudy days.
Sounds like a great system, mines on the cheaper end as I said, but I did it quick to get in while 0.07125 rebate was still going in WA, new installed now are forced to go on a 3c peak /10c off peak plan which seems worse for the way we use our power.

My understanding is that because we're on that plan, I could even replace the inverter / panels etc with far better gear if I wanted to, as long as it doesn't exceed 6.6/5kw I can retain the feed in tariff as it's classed as a repair.

The over sizing panel arrays is a great way to do it too, get more power into the inverter on either side of the peak when 5kw Max clips a little away.
 
I wonder why many appeared to be concerned about storage in these small-scale setups, when it does not necessarily need that. Storage is for now much more efficient at grid-scale or in the form of an EV, than anything one would have to add to a home, unless we are talking about going off grid on solar alone.

Weather concerns are more understandable, if the array could be expected to be destroyed by severe hail/tornado/hurricane et cetera, or be buried and useless under thick snow for months when the need is greatest as someone mentioned. What's less desirable is policies or insurance actively discouraging them without those circumstances.

My shower alone is a 240 V/7800 W appliance, and sometimes there are two of those on at the same time in here.
Gosh. That boggles the mind when the (old) apartment I live in is wired up for maybe 4500W. :oops:

I do have a tank water heater that has a 1/4HP compressor unit that sips power at maybe 200W connected to a timer, and a 3000W backup heating element for when I need hot water quickly. It also dehumidifies the bathroom while it is on.
 
The reality is in some locations home solar is not economic. Where I am I am able to generate a substantial amount of energy but it is hard to receive an economic rebate for the solar power I feed into the grid because others are doing the same and there are no good plans available. Going off grid entirely is only going to work when battery technology develops to a point of making economic and practical sense.
 
Because our "democratic" governments aren't subsidising it sufficiently, just like they aren't subsiding EVs and heat pumps and everything else we need to avoid a climate catastrophe, because those governments are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel energy sector. This is how the PRC, despite being an evil commie hellhole, is the nation that is doing the most to fight climate change - because it's not beholden to those same corrupt interests.

Solar and EVs share the same problem: they may be zero emissions, but they both have an extreme pollutant problem at the manufacturing level. Neither solve any actual problem, it just shifts them elsewhere.
As with most people who repeat this tired old trope, you don't understand the actual problem, which is the amount of carbon in the atmosphere contributing to warming the planet. All other problems are irrelevant and renewable energy is the only thing that can solve this particular one in a timeframe that won't destroy our species.

The claim that solar and EVs have an "extreme pollutant" manufacturing problem is also completely false. This is a Science and Technology forum, do some research before parroting discredited soundbites that the fossil fuel industry wants you to.

miniaturized nuclear
is a marketing scam. Nuclear requires a ridiculous amount of safety built in, safety that is simply uneconomical at any scale smaller than a full-size generating plant. Small/modular nuclear reactors are, just like liquid hydrogen, nothing more than a cynical and unworkable distraction, again pushed by the fossil fuel industry in an attempt to obfuscate, confuse and divert attention away from the solutions that have been proven for decades: solar and wind.

1) The Midwest has this thing called hail. It has feet of snow. The reason that wood and shingles are common materials is that they are very durable and can take massive temperature changes without issues...while also taking impact energy over almost that entire range. Copper and glass plates usually not so much.
This is why you put the solar generation capacity in areas of the country that don't suffer from this problem. The energy grid is a thing.

2) The 1kilowatt is the maximum that array can output....but the math there sucks. You're looking at 1000 watts for a part of each sunny day....or on average probably about 1/3 to 1/4 that. 1/2 day lost due to night. The rest lost due to non-optimal angles and coverage. Yay....your average 333 watt platform only lost 21% of its capacity...or 60 watts rounded way down. Holy crap...that sucks. No lightbulb in the bathroom for you anymore.
Nobody suggested that an entire house can be powered only by its own rooftop solar. Again, the energy grid is a thing.

3) The fact that you generate it, then need storage to meter it out, is not accounted for in costing. Let's say it's only every 3 years to replace batteries, and only uses 4 car batteries. 2024-1992 = 32 years. (32/3)*4 = 44 batteries replaced. At the average cost of about $80 that'd be $3520. That is pure cost...so be prepared for that to go up over time. Remember, lead acid is cheap but is using both sulfuric acid and lead.
The energy grid is still a thing.

4) "Modern stuff is more efficient" is a stupid non-starter. Let me be clear here...I work in manufacturing. Calculated failure dates, and planned obsolescence, is a thing. Nothing quite like a solar array bolted onto a house that requires tooling and hardware to be replaced after a decade to make you appreciate the 90's for them still building things to last...and that's almost a punchline to a joke there.
No, your claim made without any evidence is the stupid non-starter.
 
You must be aware that we currently live in the middle of an economic recession. Most people don't have spare thousands to "offset carbon emissions". Most people don't even know what that means.

Let me propose something else. Instead of asking why people don't invest in solar, let's ask why energy companies don't invest in it. If it's really the saviour of mankind, then it must be good for them, too, right?

Edit: I watched a video a while ago that said that the entire Earth's energy needs could be served by covering the Sahara desert with solar panels - but all that black surface would lower the Earth's albedo, and raise the temperature considerably, leading to basically everyone living in a desert in the near future. Therefore, solar panels alone are not a feasible alternative to the grid, just like EVs aren't to IC.
 
It's expensive where I live (so-called central Europe). Whenever the government announces any kind of incentive, manufacturers/installers immediately increase prices accordingly. You can do it yourself, but you can't tie it into the grid without paying exorbitant fees and getting nothing in return. Even if you do it only for your own off-grid needs, you have to pay taxes for generating power - when I lived in a house, we had a small 3kW installation for our AC only, but still had to pay just for being able to generate power.
So, in short - it's expensive and politicians paid by corporate lobbyists are just trash.

And for people waiting for increased efficiency - maximum theoretical efficiency of a p-n panel is 33.7%. It's called a Shockley–Queisser limit, but the theoretical efficiency of crystalline silicon solar cells was calculated to be 29.4%. There is work being done on intermediate band panels which can go up to 72% and some other technologies like thermophotovoltaic downconversion (54%) but those are many years, maybe decades away.
 
If it's really the saviour of mankind, then it must be good for them, too, right?
If you think that's how megacorporations work, I have a bridge to sell you.

Edit: I watched a video a while ago that said that the entire Earth's energy needs could be served by covering the Sahara desert with solar panels - but all that black surface would lower the Earth's albedo, and raise the temperature considerably, leading to basically everyone living in a desert in the near future.
The problem is that people like you take these "what if" videos as gospel fact. Nobody has seriously suggested covering the entirety of the Sahara with solar, and nobody ever will.

Therefore, solar panels alone are not a feasible alternative to the grid, just like EVs aren't to IC.
This is a completely moronic conclusion to draw.
 
Last edited:
Saw a pretty cool video on algae earlier in the day and lighting seems to be one of the biggest barrier in terms of getting more out of the algae doing what it do does. My thoughts are just apply the concepts of batteries and cells and like heat-sinks with surface area to lighting and algae growth and spice it up with bio-luminescence and you can probably make it significantly more effective in terms of carbon removal per square foot of space occupied or whatever. I'd imagine a lot of that is already being applied and done though somewhere by someone.

Another thing is agitating it seems to help it sounded like. So basically get it swirling around or rotating around. Sun light will only penetrate down so far though so if trying to rely on just natural sunlight keeping it moving seems like the way to go. Not that I'm some algae expert.

Just ask the AI it'll tell you what to do to make the algae the king of carbon removal.
 
It's expensive where I live (so-called central Europe). Whenever the government announces any kind of incentive, manufacturers/installers immediately increase prices accordingly. You can do it yourself, but you can't tie it into the grid without paying exorbitant fees and getting nothing in return. Even if you do it only for your own off-grid needs, you have to pay taxes for generating power - when I lived in a house, we had a small 3kW installation for our AC only, but still had to pay just for being able to generate power.
So, in short - it's expensive and politicians paid by corporate lobbyists are just trash.

And for people waiting for increased efficiency - maximum theoretical efficiency of a p-n panel is 33.7%. It's called a Shockley–Queisser limit, but the theoretical efficiency of crystalline silicon solar cells was calculated to be 29.4%. There is work being done on intermediate band panels which can go up to 72% and some other technologies like thermophotovoltaic downconversion (54%) but those are many years, maybe decades away.

Same here where I live in the EU.
My country/government is a complete ass about it so its simply not worth it for the average joe or well anyone who doesn't have extra money to burn.
My father did plan on investing into solar panels a few years ago before the new regulations change but after that he backed out of it.
 
Last edited:
Because our "democratic" governments aren't subsidising it sufficiently, just like they aren't subsiding EVs and heat pumps and everything else we need to avoid a climate catastrophe, because those governments are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel energy sector. This is how the PRC, despite being an evil commie hellhole, is the nation that is doing the most to fight climate change - because it's not beholden to those same corrupt interests.


As with most people who repeat this tired old trope, you don't understand the actual problem, which is the amount of carbon in the atmosphere contributing to warming the planet. All other problems are irrelevant and renewable energy is the only thing that can solve this particular one in a timeframe that won't destroy our species.

The claim that solar and EVs have an "extreme pollutant" manufacturing problem is also completely false. This is a Science and Technology forum, do some research before parroting discredited soundbites that the fossil fuel industry wants you to.


is a marketing scam. Nuclear requires a ridiculous amount of safety built in, safety that is simply uneconomical at any scale smaller than a full-size generating plant. Small/modular nuclear reactors are, just like liquid hydrogen, nothing more than a cynical and unworkable distraction, again pushed by the fossil fuel industry in an attempt to obfuscate, confuse and divert attention away from the solutions that have been proven for decades: solar and wind.


This is why you put the solar generation capacity in areas of the country that don't suffer from this problem. The energy grid is a thing.


Nobody suggested that an entire house can be powered only by its own rooftop solar. Again, the energy grid is a thing.


The energy grid is still a thing.


No, your claim made without any evidence is the stupid non-starter.

You have an obvious hate boner...maybe try to hide it.

1) The title is why doesn't every house have solar....if you read it, you'd see that half of your points are answered above by the simple logic of it would be stupid...because of the cited midwest example. If you want to change the discussion to why solar doesn't suck, that's a very different discussion.
2) The energy grid is a stupid answer. You aren't fixing a problem there, you're forcing the energy producers to either burn off excess or to dynamically balance their systems because you are providing them inconsistent power. I'd suggest that you don't understand how the grid actually works...but at this point discussing with you is not really an option. You want to be right, so you are. Myopia be damned.
3) A short retort to a simple question is a question and answer. You want to then pretend that I didn't provide extra. Maybe a little less tin foil in that hat next time.
 
You aren't fixing a problem there, you're forcing the energy producers to either burn off excess or to dynamically balance their systems because you are providing them inconsistent power.
Dynamically balancing supply and demand is something that power grids have had to do from day one, that's why pumped storage is a thing. Renewables change the frequency of those peaks and troughs and the grid operators are coping with that difference by installing more classic batteries. And guess who's building those batteries... yup, it's the PRC.
 
If you think that's how megacorporations work, I have a bridge to sell you.
Megacorporations seem to be working on the premise of "don't think, just buy what we sell you because we said so" instead of giving you a valid reason to buy. "Carbon emissions" are not a valid reason for people whose main problems are paying bills and putting food on the table.

The problem is that people like you take these "what if" videos as gospel fact. Nobody has seriously suggested covering the entirety of the Sahara with solar, and nobody ever will.
The video said that the idea was suggested by some energy companies, but was rejected for the above reasons. I never said I took it as gospel fact, but it was interesting. You have to admit that albedo is a real thing, though.

This is a completely moronic conclusion to draw.
Claiming that without backing it up with a counter-argument serves no purpose.
 
Here in Perth, Western Australia it's a must. Prob one of the sunniest states in the world. Every man and his dog has it. Hell, one of the builders I work for supply solar with the house and land packages. They are selling them before a 'For Sale' sign even has a chance of going up. In saying that we are in a bad market here where any house for sale atm is pretty much sold instantaneously.

Edit: This is my inverters production back in 2018. Now times it by 6 to get to 2024 ;)

View attachment 351655

When you said, "and his dog" I chuckled but then Googled and found out there really are solar panels for Fido's house. Climate control too.

1718624283728.jpeg



Makes me wonder if there are even dog sweaters with solar cells to keep dog comfy and warm when it's cold out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top