b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Off Topic » Post 1760973 | Search
This is a question Off Topic

Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.

(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
Pages: Latest, 837, 836, 835, 834, 833, ... 1

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

I had a long trip from MK to Norwich then to Nottingham last week,
I was suprised to see how many houses are starting to get solar panels on their roofs.
I wonder how much it would cost/produce for a whole city to have them put on.
(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:20, 2 replies, latest was 13 years ago)
A mate of mine has been running a company installing them in Devon
Now the government has taken away the subsidies though so financially they are less attractive
(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:21, Reply)
A BIT LIKE YOU!

(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:21, Reply)
They removed 50% of the electricity price when selling back to the grid, I believe

(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:22, Reply)
there was a grant to get them installled and yes you can sell any excess back to the leccy companies
still takes years and years to break even though
(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:23, Reply)
I saw a few adverts that mentioned about 7-10 years.
Still a good investment I think
(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:23, Reply)
That's a very good investment on a large scale
a very shit investment for an individual.
(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:24, Reply)
Depends on how long they last really
If you were guaranteed 20-25 years then they would be very good
(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:25, Reply)
exactly
those who do it, do it for green reasons not finacial ones
(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:26, Reply)
I bet this confuses the hell out of you, eh?

(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:27, Reply)
It really does

(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:31, Reply)
Weren't they forced to reinstate that?

(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:22, Reply)
genuinely don't know

(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:23, Reply)
I don't see why builders aren't compelled to include them as standard on all new buildings.

(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:24, Reply)
THIS^

(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:25, Reply)
I think it's because as a blanket "every roof" rule it would be a waste of money.
If it was purely the south facing ones which aren't in shadow by trees etc, then it would be worth it.
(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:26, Reply)
This is why my house doesn't have them
Roof faces East-West. Shame really as it has a large sq footage
(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:27, Reply)
Details.
I come up with the ideas, you guys make it work. Yeah?
(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:27, Reply)
I wonder what the generation rate is like when it isn't sunny
Not something you could 100% rely on in Britain
(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:29, Reply)
Clouds don't prevent all UV light from getting through though, do they?

(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:30, Reply)
clouds have little effect on PV as far as I remember.
But rain does.
(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:31, Reply)
because the long term energy consumption from construction
and demand for scarce materials invovled in said construction, outweighs any actual benefit it almost all cases, mostly by huge amounts.
(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:34, Reply)
I want solutions from you scientists, not further problems.
Make it work please.
(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 13:37, Reply)
I'm got a sideline in luminescence downshifting of natural sunlight to improve growth of algae
for nutrition, CO2 mitigation and potential biofuel production.

does that help your inner hippy?
(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 14:14, Reply)
Needs a catchier name.

(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 14:19, Reply)
CUNTBUSTER.
it's not relevant, I just like the word.
(, Thu 18 Oct 2012, 14:27, Reply)

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

Pages: Latest, 837, 836, 835, 834, 833, ... 1