Replies

The real question is, "How much energy did they produce and what were the economic savings?" Since this was not mentioned, I think one can assume that solar panels in this case are not a cheap source of energy.

Also not mentioned is the life expectancy of the solar panels and the expected maintenance cost.

The only real test is to add up the total life time purchase and operating cost of the solar panels and compare those to the alternatives.

And you really can’t even do that.

A conventional power plant can be upgraded and maintained indefinitely. A solar panel can not. A solar panel has a finite life time. Once it is placed in service it begins to degrade and will slowly loose efficiency.

First,why weren't the solar panels placed on the roofs of the 60 homes?Rooftops usually are wasted space and placing solar panels there gets them out of reach of much harm,and the wiring to the point of use is less.

No need to disturb cemeteries.

Currently ,power generated by solar cell panels is several times more expensive than other sources.

Solar makes sense in a number of specific situations where a limited amount of power is need and remoteness or installation costs of power lines is an issue.

I think wind powered generators ultimately produce more power but more people object because of noise or “the view”.
Labor cost is a huge factor in small installations.