• JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    ·
    edit-2
    24 hours ago

    Here in Belgium there used to be big government subsidies for solar panels 5-10 ago.

    Now the same wattage battery + solar setup without any government subsidies is a good chunk cheaper than that time with the large subsidies.

    Pretty cool and shows the power of government renewables subsidies. A huge percentage of houses in Belgium have solar panels now.(and electricity still costs 0.30€/kWh average because of fossil fuel energy lobbies)

    Now that there is a local industry around it, most renovations and almost all new builds include them.

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 hours ago

      As your northern neighbors. We did subsidize it too, but now the privatized energy companies started whining that there wasn’t enough capacity, so now they charge you for creating free energy

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      electricity still costs 0.30€/kWh average because of fossil fuel energy lobbies.

      This is the price of guaranteed electricity delivered to your doorstep. We can’t get rid of gas fired power stations and kms of electricity grid network yet.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I’m fairly sure that all newly built houses in the UK require solar by law.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 hours ago

        All the new houses around here with no solar would indicate that is not true. They’re not even required to have a south facing roof.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          At least here in California, having solar panels on a non south facing roof usually only reduces production by 10-20%, as long as it’s not entirely north facing. Solar systems are often slightly undersized - it’s more cost effective to size it so it handles average load rather than the summer peaks you only see for a few weeks per year - so the actual difference for a given system may be less.

          With my system, I see the best output from south-east facing panels since they get the morning sun. West facing panels are also fairly popular here due to time-of-use electricity plans. Some electricity plans have peak pricing from 4 to 9 pm, so people want to try and collect as much sunlight as possible during that period before sunset.

          • Blackmist@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 minutes ago

            The UK is a lot further north, and it’s probably not a massive loss.

            It was enough to prevent me getting “free” solar panels (while that was a thing) though, so I’m still salty about that.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          They’re installing ridiculously small systems so that they’re barely compliant.

        • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          It is very poorly implemented. “Builder grade” solar panels in a “smallest compliant” configuration with no concern for architecture to benefit from solar takes place. Builders are intentionally putting the shittiest solar to reduce value of the homes they build so that they can complain about the policy.