3 ms·

heavier than a solar panel, increasing all labor and mounting costs, while producing ~zero return. also not as weather proof as a solar panel, so you'll be up r

heavier than a solar panel, increasing all labor and mounting costs, while producing ~zero return. also not as weather proof as a solar panel, so you'll be up replacing them sooner.

donatj 4y ago
I'm trying to decide if you're just being silly. There's no way installing and maintaining plywood is more expensive than solar panels.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  The panel is already the cheapest part of the solar system in commercial scale. As little as €30/m^2 for older technologies that are being phased out because BOS makes buying more efficient ones cheaper. Durable plywood with a finish that doesn't scare customers away is not going to be much less and doesn't make €20 worth of electricity a year. Also you need calculator panels across 50% of it according to the law. If you're going to pay €30/m^2 for the support structure, why not add a real panel and some real inverters to pay the whole thing off in 8 years? Plus you'll attract wealthy EV early adopters. This is either a coincidence, or a very clever and perfectly timed move to provide a perfect market for the development of perovskites (which may wind up cost competitive with shade sails) while they're still too inefficient and unreliable to justify the cost of land, and hasten the transition to tandem cells by a few years.
- sigstoat 4y ago
  my family owns a large solar farm. you're the one being absurd here. paying for all of the work to build a plywood solar farm, and then _never_ _getting_ _anything_ _back_ would've been profoundly negative. you're thinking about the first day after the install. _sure_ it _might_ cost less to install a bunch of plywood. and then you never get anything for it. and nobody will give you a business loan for "i want to install fake solar panels", but "i want to install actual solar panels" has all sorts of cheap money thrown at it. over the life of the system installing actual panels has a shot at paying for itself.

heavier than a solar panel, increasing all labor and mounting costs, while producing ~zero return. also not as weather proof as a solar panel, so you'll be up replacing them sooner.

donatj 4y ago

I'm trying to decide if you're just being silly. There's no way installing and maintaining plywood is more expensive than solar panels.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
The panel is already the cheapest part of the solar system in commercial scale. As little as €30/m^2 for older technologies that are being phased out because BOS makes buying more efficient ones cheaper. Durable plywood with a finish that doesn't scare customers away is not going to be much less and doesn't make €20 worth of electricity a year. Also you need calculator panels across 50% of it according to the law. If you're going to pay €30/m^2 for the support structure, why not add a real panel and some real inverters to pay the whole thing off in 8 years? Plus you'll attract wealthy EV early adopters. This is either a coincidence, or a very clever and perfectly timed move to provide a perfect market for the development of perovskites (which may wind up cost competitive with shade sails) while they're still too inefficient and unreliable to justify the cost of land, and hasten the transition to tandem cells by a few years.
sigstoat 4y ago
my family owns a large solar farm. you're the one being absurd here. paying for all of the work to build a plywood solar farm, and then _never_ _getting_ _anything_ _back_ would've been profoundly negative. you're thinking about the first day after the install. _sure_ it _might_ cost less to install a bunch of plywood. and then you never get anything for it. and nobody will give you a business loan for "i want to install fake solar panels", but "i want to install actual solar panels" has all sorts of cheap money thrown at it. over the life of the system installing actual panels has a shot at paying for itself.