SolarCity Says It Has Produced the World's Highest Efficiency Solar Panel 184
Lucas123 writes: SolarCity, one of the country's leading solar panel makers and installers, today said it has been able to create a product that has a 22.04% efficiency rating, topping its closest competitor SunPower, by about one percent. While the percentages may appear small, SolarCity said the new panels, which will go into pilot production later this month, will produce 30% to 40% more energy with the same footprint as its current panels, and they will cost no more to make.
will they "cost no more to" buy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The panels aren't the real expense. It's the controllers and batteries and such. If all you had to buy was the panels I'd already have them all over.
Re: (Score:2)
In my 15,000 watt installation well over 50% of the cost was the solar panels.
Re: (Score:2)
Was it only the panels or the inverters, rails, etc.? I got a 5 kW system (4.3 AC) with microinverters and the panels cost about 1,100 per kW and another 5,000 for the inverters, rails, conduit etc. Labor etc. was another 1,000/kW (rebate makes it much cheaper).
Re: (Score:3)
Both. When the batteries are full I pump excess back to the grid.
I still have another 10 years on my batteries (5 years old, batteries last 15 years typically in properly designed solar), so not a problem. The solar panels have another 25 years before replacement.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need batteries when you are connected to the grid.
If you want to have batteries to live at night from your own solar installation, you need 4 times as much solar power.
So the price factor: is the solar panel, not the battery.
Re:will they "cost no more to" buy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who on earth would buy batteries for a solar panel installation? Just buy a grid tie inverter and pray your area has net metering and that's IT.
Net metering is not available everywhere, and some places are scaling back. Hawaii has some of the highest electricity prices in the world (42c / kwh). So many people are installing solar, that there is a glut of electricity during the day, and the electricity company gets whipsawed at 7pm when the solar fades but the ACs are still on. Residential battery systems that could soak up even 20% of production, would shift demand by a couple hours and solve the problem.
And no, solar panels ARE NOT cheap. If you think they are, then give me your sources.
RTFA. It says that panels are now 65c/w. If you get a quote you will find that the installation costs and infrastructure are going to more than double that. The biggest cost is no longer the panels themselves.
Re:will they "cost no more to" buy? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: why Batteries? Those of us who choose to live beyond the grid. It's only 600 metres away from my house but Energex want ~AUD$30K to extend a standard (i.e. non-AC) single-phase service to my house.
Solar panels are a damn sight cheaper than they used to be. My last purchase in 2009 was 6 x 140 watt 24 volt panels @ AUD$1400.00 each. Those same panels are now less than $400 each.
Re: (Score:2)
...a standard (i.e. non-AC) single-phase...
What?
Re: (Score:2)
I was asked a number of questions when I sought a quote for connection to the grid.
1. Single-phase or 3-phase? (Lots of dairy farms around here, they all need 3-phase)
2. "Will you be wanting air-conditioning?". When I asked what difference it made, they replied that it would cost more, as the service would be rated to deliver more amps. It seems that McMansions and ducted air-conditioning have caused some stress and overload on traditional delivery systems. One or two AC installations in a street, no proble
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In Australia we have higher electricity prices and they recently "reduced" the price by quadrupling the daily grid connection fee. They are really on the attack against solar and battery storage, leaks are showing they are wanting to charge a historic grid exit fee (so you pay thousands to disconnect from the grid). We will very likely be the first country in the world to experience the shift from centralized to distributed power and our major energy companies are fighting it strongly.
We were one of the f
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Has Hawaii mandated solar water heating in all residences yet?
When I lived there in the 90s in drove me crazy that 3% (back then) of the electricity was used on hot water production, but there was free sun everywhere.
If I recall, most of the electricity production there is from diesel generators. A 3% reduction in electricity consumption translates into 3% fewer tankers at risk of destroying their economy with a diesel spill.
Oh... and the windmills on the North Shore weren't spinning. Have they fixed that y
Re:will they "cost no more to" buy? (Score:4, Informative)
When I was there they said corrosion had destroyed the wind generators. Evidently the people that installed them didn't consider the salt environment when they did the install.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The cost of complete solar systems panels and batteries is offset by the capital value they add to the property, so unlike renting a power connection and burning capital as energy, it gives the home owner something to sell. So the cost of a complete system has less impact due to the retained capital value of the system (developing branding of complete systems will have a major impact in this ie powered by Tesla or say Toyota vs a cobbled together system), pretty much no different to the air-conditioning or
Re: (Score:3)
You sound like some sort of religious fanatic. I'm all for solar and off grid but it's not cost effective yet. It's getting better but there's no way for me to go off grid as that's a huge outlay of money and it'll take many years to recoup the investment. DC appliances cost way more than their AC alternatives. I priced a DC air conditioning system and it was prohibitively expensive. I can see this getting better but we're a decade or maybe two away from solar being more affordable than being on the gr
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like some sort of religious fanatic. I'm all for solar and off grid but it's not cost effective yet. It's getting better but there's no way for me to go off grid as that's a huge outlay of money and it'll take many years to recoup the investment. DC appliances cost way more than their AC alternatives. I priced a DC air conditioning system and it was prohibitively expensive. I can see this getting better but we're a decade or maybe two away from solar being more affordable than being on the grid. I plan to start small and build a system a little at a time as I can afford it and it makes sense.
They are cost effective as an alternative to the grid. Going off the grid entirely is another issue.
That being said, we go off the grid during the summer at our summer camp. The stove and fridge are propane and all of our lights are connected to portable battery packs that we charge using solar. The bathroom is an environmental toilet. We have the lake to swim in. Granted, there is no TV and internet is via cell, charging everything off of the battery packs. We do have a generator as a backup in case
Re: (Score:3)
Well sure, it's easy and cheap to go off grid if you don't really want all the modern conveniences like a washer, dryer, refrigerator, air conditioning, etc. I could probably do without a lot of things but there are limits. It's still cheaper to buy electricity from the power company that generate and store my own. I see the day coming that will change though as technology marches on.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar's pretty close to being cheaper than buying it from the local power company. Like, really, really close. Google's got a big fat bounty for reducing the transformer/inverter down in cost and size, that's the last step. Lithium battery tech is about to make a huge generational leap, solar panels are very nearly free (they pay for themselves in the first year), it's just the controller/inverters.
Hell if someone would sell a 2-Ton DC-powered Air Conditioning unit wired directly to some solar panel
Re: (Score:3)
You sound like an idiot who can't read. I simply said that going off-grid with solar requires a huge outlay of money that makes it cost prohibitive for most.
Re: (Score:2)
It would make sense nowadays to plan for solar energy when building a house. If you must be off grid there are ways to make it work. I'd use propane for heat and cooking though. It's reliable and really nothing beats a gas stove. I really think that a battery breakthrough is just around the corner. If they can get the cost of batteries down then I think Solar will really take off.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Have you even done any calculations for how much energy is consumed by cooking and heating? My home has a gas stove, gas water heater, and gas heater. During summer my consumption is about 7 therms, which is equivalent to about 205 kWh (my bill is about $15). During winter it's about 10x that.
Using a solar constant of 800 Wat
Re: (Score:3)
The cost of complete solar systems panels and batteries is offset by the capital value they add to the property, so unlike renting a power connection and burning capital as energy, it gives the home owner something to sell.
Maybe at some point in the future. Right now as someone who has close ties to realestate industry it doesn't only not add value to the property to be off the grid, but it actually counts as a negative. People don't care for fancy gadgets, they care for an easy to understand reliable connection that involves no maintenance. Off grid solar or actually anything off grid fails on all three of those points. Solar is about as much of an "asset" as a car, it costs a lot up front, devalues quickly as technology pro
Re: (Score:2)
Inverters, mounting hardware, roof engineering, installation cost - all these things are not directly proportional to panel wattage but depend on panel count/covered area too. More efficient panels may make whole system cheaper even if panels are more expensive per watt. Especially in the US, where residential solar is not mainstream and installation still costs a lot comparing to places like Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they hate you because you're a fucking idiot. The solar has nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
His daughter is also his wife. I think that's the real problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than that, he's his own grandmother.
Not one percent (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The result of those moves are the new panels that Rive is unveiling today, which will produce at least 30% more power, while reducing the cost of installing solar panels on one’s roof by between 20 and 30 cents per watt.
30% more power than what?
Re: (Score:2)
Context of the article, than the panels they were selling previously. If they developed a trick that allows them to produce panels that produce 30% more power than their last product line at not added expense, that makes them that much more competitive.
The previous product line was probably around 17% efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
100% this.
Re: (Score:2)
It said 30% better than their current panels, not SunPower's panels. Their current panels are around 17% efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Labor cost to install remains the biggest issue... (Score:5, Interesting)
In my area, the cost of the panels is no longer the primary issue.
I can purchase a 10kw system online including all the panels, cables, inverter, etc. for about $17K.
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/... [wholesalesolar.com]
That system has 32 panels, the "smart" inverter, racking, disconnect, etc.
The trick is installing it. The lowest total installed price for that system that I've been able to find is $35K. That strikes me as nuts.
I've contacted multiple companies, I've had 2 of them quote me systems after looking at my roof.
Making the panels a bit more efficient won't cut the price by enough to matter until the install cost comes down. Maybe I should start a solar panel install company. :)
Re: (Score:2)
If you cant DIY it, then give up now as install costs will never go down and will only go up. You are paying for labor and insurance for the installers and those rates go up every year and never ever go down.
Re: (Score:2)
If you cant DIY it, then give up now as install costs will never go down and will only go up. You are paying for labor and insurance for the installers and those rates go up every year and never ever go down.
Do you honestly think $18K to install a 32 panel solar system is reasonable?
That strikes me as nuts. I'm sure there are some bits and parts needed beyond the $17K of hardware, but lord I didn't pay that much for my whole roof, both labor and materials.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not inherently unreasonable.
Fair enough, but if that is the case, then solar has no future in residential home installs...
Baring the panels being free and tripling efficiency to reduce the number that have to be installed...
The labor simply costs too much. I expect it has more to do with the low install rate and the few installers than anything else.
Your roof probably didn't require an electrician to install, let alone any real expectations to it.
It took a crew of 6+ 2 days to install it, between that and the materials, it couldn't have been cheap... and it was about $14K total, and that was with the insurance company paying for
Re: (Score:2)
That installation price is extortionate, UK and Germany panel installations are a fraction of the cost.
Lack of competition, more demand than supply and onerous red tape costs are likely the problem.
Re:Labor cost to install remains the biggest issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Hint you have to use a certified (by the solar panel manufacture aka the last guys that touched it) to get the fed tax credits.
Like most federal tax credits incentives etc it's pork for a corp interest. All you should need is the signoff from the electrical inspector maybe have them do a quick power output test and sign some paperwork. Instead the value of that work gets marked up the same as the tax breaks.
Re: (Score:2)
Making the panels a bit more efficient won't cut the price by enough to matter until the install cost comes down.
More efficient means fewer panels, means lower install cost. This small an increment might not even eliminate 1 panel from your system, but the accumulation of these increments means you need way fewer panels than you did 10 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
While that is true, it won't lower it by much...
Cutting the panel count from 32 to 28 doesn't reduce the cost by more than perhaps a few hundred dollars.
The real cost is in setting the whole thing up, bringing the crew out, wiring it to the house and grid, and setting up the roof in the first place.
Adding or removing 5 panels is trivial once all that is done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is crazy cheap... something doesn't seem right with that, but who knows...
Of course, one has to mount them and hook them up. :)
Re: (Score:2)
While that is true, it won't lower it by much...
Cutting the panel count from 32 to 28 doesn't reduce the cost by more than perhaps a few hundred dollars.
One thing I forgot to point out, this article compares the output of these Solar City panels to SunPower, the current most efficient. That is a small margin. But compared to what Solar City currently uses, they're 30-40% more efficient. Now _that_ reduces panel count enough to lower installation cost.
It is crucial that Solar City says they'll cost the same to produce. Although a SunPower installation involves significantly fewer panels, the panels cost so much that the savings is not all that great. But cut
Re: (Score:2)
Now _that_ reduces panel count enough to lower installation cost.
Perhaps, but not by that much...
How much labor is there in installing one panel next to another, once you're already there and setup for it?
A hundred dollars?
Even if you cut the panel count from 32 to 16, you're only cutting $1,600 off the install cost (and even that might be high).
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but not by that much...
How much labor is there in installing one panel next to another, once you're already there and setup for it?
A hundred dollars?
Even if you cut the panel count from 32 to 16, you're only cutting $1,600 off the install cost (and even that might be high).
No, you have to install the frame to hold the panel, secure it to the roof, waterproof the mounts, do some minimal wiring. There is significant per-panel labor cost.
Re: (Score:2)
So if you have 2 guys doing each panel, and it takes 2.5 hours to do each panel (it doesn't, but lets say it does), and you pay them $20/hr, you're at $100 a panel.
Fair enough, double that to $200/hr since the company has to make money.
$3,200 for 16 panels.
Out of $18k install costs, that still isn't much, and these new panels don't cut the panel count in half. :(
I'm honestly not trying to be hard about this, I just don't think the cost of adding one more panel to an install makes THAT much difference.
Regard
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, I'm still hoping to hear someone suggest a company in the Dallas area that doesn't charge stupid rates.
Different technologies, different areas. In New England contractors are absolutely rapacious with geothermal installs.
Anyway, if you're the least bit handy, google for DIY solar installs. I'm actually considering it myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a few minor things...
In my case, I have a two story home that is far enough off the ground that I don't want to be climbing up there myself. I could, but I'd rather not fall. :)
Installing 32 panels up there is really a multiple person job.
I also don't have experience with wiring this type of electricity and while I could figure it out, I don't care to risk my family's safety with something that I'm clearly an amateur at.
So yes, technically I could do it, but this is the sort of thing I'm happy to pay
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not against hiring people, but it really takes so little skill and time and $35k is more than I make in a year and honestly more than the cost of all the rest of the electricity I'll use in my life.
Re: (Score:3)
That is why I think $18K to install it is beyond insane...
I just haven't found a reasonable local company...
As for the power itself, $35K works out to about 12 years of my power bills, but even that is too much since a 10kw system will only reduce maybe 40% of my bill.
It is too expensive. At $25K before tax credits, it starts to make sense.
If good panels can be had for less than $17K for the whole kit, of course the cost would come down further.
Maybe other areas have decent competition and suppliers, if th
Re: (Score:2)
If the install cost were something like $8K, for a total out of pocket cost of $25K, I'd be interested.
Oh well... as it stands, that probably explains why almost no houses around here have solar. This area could afford it if they wanted to, but at $35K for 10kw of solar, it just makes no sense.
I dunno (Score:2)
Well.... cucumbers and corn on the cob, perhaps, but good luck getting someone to lay a pineapple or a live lobster. This is by no means a universal solution for snotty food purchases.
Re: (Score:2)
SolarCity won't install here. I've talked to them.
Because I'm a member of a cooperative that doesn't provide big rebates and incentives, they won't have anything to do with it.
When I talked to the man on the phone and provided my zip code and power company, he said they couldn't work with them, they only have "select companies" that they work with.
Re: (Score:2)
too bad for you. that's the fault then of your local legs, and not you, nor the company.
Wait a min, you're suggesting that the fault of SolarCity not installing here is my local power company not being willing to pay them enough in kickbacks?
THAT is what you went with?
Re: (Score:2)
But this will help the install costs. If you only need 24 panels you will spend less to get it installed and your base costs will go down because you'll need less cabling/racking/etc. If we take the ~18k install costs and divide it by the 32 panels we get ~500 per panel. Only needing 24 panels would save you 4k on the install costs based on that.
Sure, if the install cost worked that way, but it doesn't.
Once you're out on a job, putting up an extra few panels isn't that much work. Getting the job setup in the first place, getting a crew out, getting a permit, wiring it all up, that is the big cost.
This might cut, give or take, $500-1,000 off the install price.
It is nice, but not a game changer.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a good thing SolarCity installs the panels for you when you buy them, then.
Sure, if they would install here, but they won't.
I live in the Dallas, TX area, they do install here, except for areas that are served by cooperatives. Only if you're with Oncore or Texas-New Mexico Power Delivery Companies will they install (due to the rebates and deals they give SolarCity).
Re: (Score:2)
Making them on the ground isn't hard, and frankly the racks that hold the panels aren't expensive, it is getting them on the roof. :)
We just don't have any real competition here, there aren't a half dozen companies pushing for business, so the prices aren't reasonable here.
Cost? Life? (Score:3, Interesting)
The new panels produce 30% to 40% more power over the current models, but they cost the same to manufacture -- about .55 cents per watt, according to Bass. The panels, which are 1.61 meters or 1.81 meters in size, depending on the model, will have a capacity of 355 watts each.
. Curiously they don't claim it would cost the same to the users. May be a little profit taking, nothing wrong with that, they need some motivation and some returns to attract investments. Anyway they have competition, they are not the sole manufacturer of some life saving drug or something. Market will rein in the profits at the optimal level. And may be transportation and installation might be a little more expensive? Don't know, but encouraged the cost of manufacturing is same.
No mention of life of the panels.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't seem to notice that the price being quoted is per watt. Not per square foot or any other measure of area. So the new higher efficiency panels will cost more than the older panels. But the new panels will generate more power. As for the customer cost, like other posters have observed, the lions share is for the control electronics and inverters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's amazing! So a 355 watt panel will cost 355*0.55=195 cents!
Can you buy these panels yourself? (Score:2)
As other commentators have pointed out, the install prices these days, compared to the prices of the panels, are insane. The installations have gotten simpler than ever - with microinverters, you literally can go up there and install 1 panel per weekend as the system functions just fine with N number of panel/inverter modules installed. (as long as N is smaller than the number of panels that can fit on your roof)
Anyways, SunPower won't sell you the panels directly. I have seen them available online but on
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can you buy these panels yourself? (Score:5, Informative)
Like this? https://www.anapode.com/produc... [anapode.com]
Point is, you need a panel. And you need a microinverter. And you need a wire to the roof. And you need a box, called a combiner box, the wire goes into. There is usually a cutoff switch on that box. Then, after that, the wire from the combiner box is usually backfed into your main breaker panel, with the power going backwards through an appropriate breaker rated for the wire's ampacity. Really, the tricky part is the power company has to come and approve the design and install their 2 way meter. Everything else, any idiot can do.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you Lucas123 (Score:2)
Herein lies the problem.... (Score:3)
Solar City offers you two options - buy the panels outright or lease them. Most people go for the lease option because of the lower upfront cost. I looked at this about a year ago but decided not to get it once I found out that you can't upgrade the panels when newer/cheaper/better ones come along. Whatever you signed up for you are stuck with. No thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To me it just seems like a 25 year car lease. Nobody leases a car for 25 years. Why? Because the technology improves sufficiently that you can get more car for the same money. New features, better gas mileage, more power, etc.
Sure you could buy the panels outright - for about $35,000 or so depending on the size of your house. And in 5 years when much better technology comes along what are you going to do with the old panels? You could sell them for pennies on the dollar but someone has to climb up on the ro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok fair enough. The panels would still work, although less efficiently than newer ones. For me the real deal killer was that it would only save me $30 a month. That's peanuts and certainly not enough to go to the time and expense of having it installed. I want something that will save me $100 a month minimum. Then it starts to make more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
There are actually 4 options... (Score:2)
There are actually 4 options... buy outright, buy financing through them, lease with an option to buy, buy power (lease, no option to buy, lower cost).
And yeah, they told me about the no panel upgrade and that bothered me as well. I have some shade in the area, and it moves around, and in order to get off the grid entirely, a 13% increase in panel efficiency for a given area would fix it. But they will not upgrade your existing panels when more efficient panels become available.
So that sticks me with a 20
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected on the options - but it really does boil down to buy or lease. It sounds like your experience was similar to mine. I went into it with high hopes but the terms and the numbers just didn't do it for me. 13% increase is pretty big actually. But I suspect that in a couple of years it will be there. Then I'll give it another look.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever you signed up for you are stuck with. No thanks.
So did you base your decision purely the ability for you to upgrade or did the offer fail a return on investment analysis?
If you were to buy one today and upgrade in 2 years would the investment be based on the fact that you hope it pays for itself when it's more efficient?
Did you do a return on investment calculation based on the assumption of re-investing after only a couple of years?
Really on what basis did you reject this? It sounds like you're kicking the can down the road happily buying electricity wh
Re: (Score:2)
I did do an ROI. My net savings would have been $30/month vs what I am paying now for electricity from the grid. 30 bucks. And that is assuming you agree with their projections on energy cost going forward, which they factor into the calculation. Now I am sure that the cost of electricity is going to go up but nobody knows by how much. Factoring in the tax rebates the payoff would have been about 8 years. I'm not that I'll be in this house for that long.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is the fact that they don't upgrade you on the lease has nothing to do with you not purchasing them and it would have railed ROI if you had bought them outright too.
I thought so.
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm saying is that the ROI didn't work out whether I purchased them or I leased them. The fact that I'm locked into a 25 year lease with no opportunity to upgrade just reinforces that it's a bad deal.
Look, if you want to get solar panels because it makes you feel like you're saving the world then have at it. Not every decision is or should be based on money. All I'm saying is that I looked at it and I didn't like the terms. I'm not going to go to the trouble and expense of putting panels on my roof jus
The most interesting part of the Article (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair the caption says, "SolarCity's 1 GW solar panel manufacturing facility in Buffalo, N.Y. is expected to open in early 2017", and the picture shows active construction, and it is only 2015. So they have year to finish the building and add Solar to it.
SolarCity = Liars (Score:2)
We've had FAR more efficient panels around.
http://solarlove.org/sharp-sol... [solarlove.org]
Solar City isn't even fucking CLOSE to most efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Single Junction vs Multi-Junction.
Single junction cells are currently the winner for actual installs, multi-junction cells are the ones that are so expensive that you want to focus many time's the sun's emissions on it.
Basically, you're comparing a family car against a top fuel car.
Re: (Score:2)
No, about 33% is the theoretical limit for any single-junction cell for *a single wavelength*. We also have silicon and carbon pillar nanotech that allows capture of almost all wavelengths, it's been here in /. before. Single-junction cells will get far more efficient as we can harness wider bandgap ranges.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have to ask, you can't afford them.
Re: (Score:3)
If you have to ask, you can't afford them.
With SolarCity you don't buy the system, you just choose to use them as a service provider and pay them per kw/hr for what they generate. They own the panels and all the other hardware, installation, and maintenance. The upside is you aren't responsible for doing anything other than paying your monthly generation bill. There are two major downsides.
It's a 20-year contractual commitment. If you sign up and then sell your house, you're still on the hook. The best case scenario is the new owner could elect to
Re: (Score:3)
With SolarCity you don't buy the system, you just choose to use them as a service provider and pay them per kw/hr for what they generate. They own the panels and all the other hardware, installation, and maintenance. The upside is you aren't responsible for doing anything other than paying your monthly generation bill. There are two major downsides.
The other downside is that they only install where they get special deals from the local power company, I've talked to SolarCity, they won't install here because I'm a member of a cooperative that only provides a $1,000 rebate for installing solar. The other for-profit companies give much higher rebates.
Re: (Score:3)
With SolarCity you don't buy the system, you just choose to use them as a service provider and pay them per kw/hr for what they generate. They own the panels and all the other hardware, installation, and maintenance. The upside is you aren't responsible for doing anything other than paying your monthly generation bill. There are two major downsides.
The other downside is that they only install where they get special deals from the local power company, I've talked to SolarCity, they won't install here because I'm a member of a cooperative that only provides a $1,000 rebate for installing solar. The other for-profit companies give much higher rebates.
From both of these responses, I can tell that these supposed do-gooders are actually about the solar equivalent of nursing home medicare fraudsters or ambulance chasers.
Re: (Score:3)
Money talks. Mostly it's obscenities and profanity.
Re: (Score:2)
And bad hair. Trump 2016!
Re: (Score:2)
That sucks. There are some companies in Ontario that let you put panels on your roof without paying. They basically lease your roof for 20 years and pay your $500 to $600 a year. It all depends on how many panels they can put on. They take care of any maintenance and even remove and reinstall the panels for no charge for no charge if you have to re-shingle the roof. After 20 years you get the system. That's because we have a feed in tariff and this is great if you can't afford a system on your own or d
Re: (Score:2)
That is one option, but you can buy them too (including installation and inverter, of course; they're not in the business of selling just a panel). I bought my system from them; I owe nothing for the next 30 years or so, but they owe me a warranty, insurance, and a minimum production guarantee. I still have to pay the minimum monthly charge for my power bill to the power company, of course - I'm not off-grid, just roughly net zero.
If I sell my house, the benefits go to the next owner (who also would have no
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't expect that one can simply call up and get pricing on panels like one gets pricing on the cheap kits at Harbor Freight. It's also likely that they don't want to do that because the installation and maintenance of a complex solar system with grid-tie is a bit beyond even many electricians, let alone most hobbyists or DIY enthusiasts.
The main holdup for me
Re: (Score:2)
yeah. and fusion is just around the corner. with the flying cars
don't count on what is supposed to be coming until it actually comes. some changes can proceed quite rapidly. but other changes can take a long time to make an effect, and some discoveries which "feel" close are actually many difficult steps away that are not immediately appreciable. what you're pegging at 10 years away could be 100 years away. meanwhile, changes you can't foresee are creating and are created by unseen effects as technological
Re: (Score:3)
We're deep into diminishing-returns territory on the benefits of population. Cutting back on population growth would let us focus more on the education and support of what kids we do have, netting a greater overall amount of scientific output than we'd get by just breeding like roaches.
It's a shame that the people with access to education and who have the skills and the environment to make a difference are heeding your warning and not breeding, while the people in the world who have no food, no education and no future continue to breed like the cockroaches you mention.
Re: (Score:2)
i am not a conspiracy theorist
however, when robotics makes excess labor defunct, i'd bet a strange epidemic of unknown origin strikes
the rich and powerful will have the means to weather the storm, but 90% of us (99%?) will cease to exist
Re: Not a city (Score:2)
Bono won't play Sun City