English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

in this way,we don't have to consume all crazy fuel,put out unwanted gases,they still get a payment from us and everyone's happy.
go green!

2007-04-20 05:37:07 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment

have the state government step in and help out.

maybe not on top of our homes but somewhere that they could use 1 panel to power 3-4 homes.

2007-04-20 05:53:39 · update #1

9 answers

I understand what you are saying, and you probably already know the answer. First the electric company needs our permission because it's our house/private property. Second
it's easier to put solar panels on vacant land than on top of houses and be responsible for roof leak lawsuits. Third the electric company probably figures it's the house builder's job to install solar panels and not them.

2007-04-20 05:44:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I would expect the prime consideration is money. Solar panels are not free, and they can be somewhat fragile. Power companies have enough to worry about to keep their current infrastructure running. If you were willing to pay more for having solar panels, then power companies would be all for it. But, until the costs are low enough, I seriously doubt this will happen.

2007-04-20 05:54:30 · answer #2 · answered by Your Best Fiend 6 · 0 0

At an average cost of $25,000 to $30,000 per home, that's WAAAY more money than most people can afford. And, how does the electric company make any money after they sell you the solar panels? They *are* in the business to make a profit, afterall.

.

2007-04-20 05:45:23 · answer #3 · answered by tlbs101 7 · 0 0

The solar panels are very expensive and if u covered the whole roof with panels it might produce 40% of your needs.

2007-04-20 08:53:21 · answer #4 · answered by JOHNNIE B 7 · 0 0

Create Home Solar Power : http://SolarPower.duebq.com/?Mpp

2017-04-03 02:45:11 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

Solar panels are very expensive. It is just not cost-efficient.

2007-04-20 05:44:59 · answer #6 · answered by RcknRllr 4 · 0 0

It would costs thousands of dollars that would take forever to recover.

2007-04-20 05:48:50 · answer #7 · answered by Gene 7 · 0 0

Hey - great idea! I really think it is!
But then they'd charge us out the a$$ for that!

2007-04-20 05:45:00 · answer #8 · answered by Done 6 · 0 0

Why don't you?

2007-04-20 05:45:04 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers