Hacker News Reader

Comment by extropy | Hacker News Reader

In this case it's way cheaper to put those panels on your house.

No weight or vibration requirements, can use the electricity for your house too.

The only downside is you need to plug in.

This assumes that you - own your house (30% rent in Europe [1]) - That you can charge at home (14% live in flats in UK for example [2]), many other properties don't have parking attached too and even for those with allocated parking, connecting a charger is prohibitively difficult (digging up roads / getting consent etc.)

Governments will likely be slow to implement on street charging. There is a market for something like this, if it works as well as they say - which I doubt.

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... [2] https://www.mortgagefinancegazette.com/market-news/housing/t...

Why hasn't the owner of the house put solar panels up? They own a house, by definition they're into long term investing

The owner would be the landlord, there is no benefit to them installing solar panels unless it increases the rental value to pay for them, it likely doesn't. Solar panels don't add value to a house and may decrease it. [1] Also there limits solar panel installations in conservation areas in UK and your roof can face the wrong way, so they are not efficient particularly.

[1] https://www.which.co.uk/news/2017/07/do-solar-panels-affect-...

No money for generating solar power? I get 20p/kwh

Rates for new installations are much lower. Complicated to work it out, but seem to be around 4p/kwh. Also, the landlord would not benefit from any feed in tariff as the tenant pays the electric bill and would receive any feed in tariff benefit.

Most of those houses existed when the rate was high

That's not how it works, it's based on the date of the solar installation, not when the house was built.

But why didn't the owner install solar back then?

Uhm.....back when? In the UK out of the 9 houses I rented so far 8 were 80+ years old, and the last one was "only" 40 years old. Installation of solar panels on houses this old also presents some challenges, as most of them will have original roofs quickly approaching a full century. And if you need to replace the roof just to install some solar panels it quickly becomes an unprofitable idea.

Who cares? Statistically most houses in most places don't have solar. No amount of justification or argument will go back in time and retroactively change that historical fact.

There are other investment options for something that has no liquidity and doesn't result in a profit for 8 years or more.

I rented a house in the UK which had solar panels but we never received any money from the electricity generated with it(I knew that's the deal going in, but still).

Does the owner pay electricity in the UK? In the US the tenant pays it directly.

Depends on the tenancy agreement, some are bills included, some are not.

Usually the tenant would pay directly for electricity along with other bills, unless they are just renting a room.

My HOA doesn't allow it or I'd have them already. And there is no way to fix this because the way the HOA is set up, it is impossible to get a quorum to change it.

Assuming you're in the US due to the relative popularity of HOAs there, this has thankfully been blocked in some (particularly sunny) states. At least California, Texas, Florida, and a few others have solar access laws that prohibit HOA restrictions on solar panel installations. It's worth making sure your state doesn't have a similar policy.

Flood their houses to prove a point.

What if you live in an apartment and only use your car for weekend activities?

> What if you live in an apartment and only use your car for weekend activities?

Then you probably live in a city and would be better served by transport modes where you don't need a big upfront cost, and other expenses and hassle of owning your own vehicle. I mean bus, tram, metro rail, taxi, uber.

You can always qualify with further "what if you..." to find someone who matches this case. But by the time you're done it won't be a viable number of customers.

People who live in big cities and ride crowded public transport every day to work, do not want to spend their free time on the weekend riding crowded public transport in the city.

The cars are used to get away from crowds and from the city, to have some privacy and comfort and go out into nature.

If the intent was to be green, to minimize your carbon footprint, then you would buy an older, pre-owned, small displacement vehicle instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com