You must log in or register to comment.

Surur t1_ivce49m wrote


> Almost one-third of Australian households have solar panels — the highest rate in the world.7 Feb 2022


sveme t1_ive6nrw wrote

There‘s probably no better and easier place for PV than Australia. Lots of sun, single detached houses, large roof areas. It‘s probably the place where all roofs should have PV.


alexanderpas t1_ivebds4 wrote

Now look at the suburban US.

Seems like an even better place to do rooftop solar.


MLS_Analyst t1_ivf4tqu wrote

Flying into Texas is so depressing. So many rooftops, so much sun, so few solar panels.

And then every year we see so many hundreds (thousands?) of weather-related deaths there because they've let their grid go to shit.

EDIT: For some understanding of just how much Texas is letting their natural resources lay fallow, here you go:


crappykillaonariva t1_ivf5cod wrote

Texas has the 2nd most solar in the US behind California


MLS_Analyst t1_ivf9p7i wrote

Texas is 24th in solar installations per capita despite being smack in the sun belt:

It's growing, which is encouraging, but California's per-100k installations is 9x Texas's.


crappykillaonariva t1_ivfpbbd wrote

The only reason I mentioned that is I noticed the opposite of what you are describing above (i.e. rooftop solar everywhere) in Austin. I'm not sure per capita is relevant given that each state has a fixed amount of land mass but Texas has been building the 2nd most solar per year for the past few years, which is great. Not to mention that Texas has fewer sun hours and higher temperatures than California (solar panels are as much as 25% less efficient when temperatures are high).

Texas' grid issues are a completely separate issue and, if anything, adding non-firm power (i.e. solar) to the grid could exacerbate their issues (I don't think that adding solar is what is causing their grid issues though, just mismanagement).

Texas should be applauded for massively increasing their solar installations over the past few years, not criticized because they can't keep pace with California.


MLS_Analyst t1_ivfq0p4 wrote

> not criticized because they can't keep pace with California.

They're not even keeping pace with New England, or the entire northeast outside of Pennsylvania. Texas absolutely should be criticized for that.

And selecting Austin as representative of the whole state is disingenuous for the obvious reasons.


crappykillaonariva t1_ivg41ly wrote

Are you looking at this on a per capita basis? Again, I think total installations is the better metric to use but there is a lot of solar development in Texas and there are plenty of other states in great climates for solar that aren't developing solar as fast as Texas is. Texas has a lot of issues with their electrical grid but solar isn't one of them IMO.


I think Texas is an interesting example because they really aren't building solar for climate reasons, they are building it for economic reasons (i.e. solar projects are profitable). I think the end goal should be to generate our energy from solar, wind, hydro and nuclear and proving that solar is a profitable endeavor will only further that goal.


I never insinuated that Austin is representative of the whole state and am not being disingenuous. It was an anecdote in the same vein as your earlier comment re flying into texas and not noticing solar panels.


GutFeelingonTheLong t1_ivgdg8i wrote

The solar industry is booming in Texas. I see it on a ton of houses. It’s very expensive though. We are installing in on our home. I wish our electric companies had better net metering programs like other states though.


ChildrenAreOurDoom t1_ivf58tr wrote

There are climate regions in the US that, while still possible, have less benefit than Australia. places with heavy snow or lots of rain/overcast.

Hell, i'm in a GOOD area for solar, and still doesnt make sense for me to get panels because my roof is covered by trees almost all the day.

Which is a benefit of its own, as it keeps my cooling costs low in the summer.


Masark t1_ivfm07z wrote

Snow doesn't actually affect solar that much. At latitudes where snow is significant, the panels will be tilted enough that the snow largely just falls off.


ChildrenAreOurDoom t1_ivfoamr wrote

i've head that before, but my aunt has to go out with a broom and brush the snow off her tilted panels after heavy storms.


alexanderpas t1_ivfwlnl wrote

> after heavy storms.

Which means that regular snow doesn't affect the panels that much.

It's only after heavy storms that you want to clear the panels, which is no different than the clearing of the roof you would need to do anyways.


Adventurous_Ad4950 t1_ivgjyrx wrote

There should be better maintenance systems for domestic PVs. Not everyone has the ability to climb on the roof and clear snow every time there’s a heavy storm (and hello climate degradation). Hiring a service to do it for you is not in everyone’s budget either.


Ok_Dependent1131 t1_ivfuhbj wrote

Yup. But cooling costs could be zero after a few years when the ROI of the panels and batteries is worked down.


ChildrenAreOurDoom t1_ivg0ufv wrote

It makes no sense for me to cut down trees that provide me with a lot of cooling benefit, hurt the ability of the planet to absorb air pollution, hut the ability of the ground to absorb storm water, hurt the planet for the production, shipping, and resource extraction to make the panels and batteries, and to make my property look barren, just so i can use generated energy for cooling.


Ok_Dependent1131 t1_ivgjkpt wrote

I mean, I have trees around my house but I wouldn’t have to fell them completely to get sun to hit my roof. It’s not all or nothing. Also people can put solar panels on the ground too but city living makes that tougher


20thcenturyboy_ t1_ivf2xvz wrote

If rooftop solar was as affordable in the US as it is in Australia I think it would be just as popular. I get very jealous when I see Australians talk about how much their installs cost.


Cazza81 t1_ivednoe wrote

The Australian government offered a lot of incentives to install solar panels. I'm in one of the hotter states and I'd say it's closer to half of all places that have rooftop solar panels - ours do well even in Winter (very mild winter).


VdomanFla t1_ivcl0dr wrote

Solar would work in the U.S. too if our greedy power companies stopped bribing our government officials to stop it. Even our insurance companies will not insure a house with solar without an extra cost. Any incentive to contribute back to the grid has been bribed away. We are in a very sad state of affairs here.


Surur t1_ivcmnit wrote

Home solar in USA cost several times more than in other countries for some reason. They are probably just charging what the market will bear and profiteering.


PM_ME_YOUR_STEAM_ID t1_ivdf3rh wrote

Yup, I've had several solar quotes over the past 4 years. Every single one of them would increase cost about 40% more (solar loan) than my regular electricity bill.

The cost is just way too high.


siinfekl t1_ive7hmx wrote

Mine (in Aus) should pay for themselves in 3 years, 4 max. Insurance wasn't effected and value of house is realistically improved by the value of the panels


kidicarus89 t1_ivexwha wrote

Wow, what state are you in? In the Southwest Solar is pretty much a no brainer if you have a new roof. Payoff is usually 4-6 years.


GutFeelingonTheLong t1_ivg8pde wrote

It’s move like 8-10 years to break even in the US. More at the current financing rate. We are about to install solar on our home.


VdomanFla t1_ivn96bx wrote

Florida… it’s corrupted all to hell here.


_AndyJessop t1_ivf09hg wrote

Have you thought about just buying the kit yourself and running a system that isn't grid-tied?


VdomanFla t1_ivn9e0f wrote

We are not allowed… BY LAW… to completely off-grid. Even a full solar system we still have to pay a minimum to the power company, and that cost doubled in the last year.


randomusername8472 t1_ive5e44 wrote

I figured this out after talking to a few people on hear who seemed really angry that solar was crazy unaffordable. From my perspective it's expensive, but the panels are the cheapest part and the reduction in energy means they should pay themselves back double over their life time.

I got 2.2kW worth of panels added to my roof. The panels cost about £700 ($750). The inverter and other equipment was another £1500. The scaffolding was £700, and the installation was £1200.

£4200 total ($4500) and halved our energy bill!


improbablyatthegame t1_ivfqr8i wrote

Just had a quote run here in Texas. $45,000…no storage battery included.


randomusername8472 t1_ivfxra6 wrote

For an amount comparable to 2.2kWh!? That's insane!


improbablyatthegame t1_ivgrq0a wrote

19kWh system, 49 panels.


randomusername8472 t1_ivguvr9 wrote

That's about 10x the size of mine, so actually not too surprised it's 10x the price!

To have that much solar power on my house in the UK I think I would need to register as a power station, if I wanted to also connect and input to the grid! (Don't hold me to that, it's just anything up to 5kW has a really simplifying process and no planning permissions or needed or anything).

In the UK average houses only really need 2-3kW system, which would basically meet all needs in the summer but not really touch the sides of usage in winter - we get so little sunlight in the winter it's not even worth trying.

It's very, very rare for a residential property to have above a 5kW system.

But then, we don't really use cooling and we tend to use natural gas for heating. So while we only use 10-15kwH of electricity per day, we use a lot more in natural gas for heating over the winter.


GutFeelingonTheLong t1_ivggjor wrote

Call project solar. They seem to have the best rates in our area of TX. We had quotes from 5 companies and they were the best quote by far. I found Project Solar by researching on the solar Reddit page.


improbablyatthegame t1_ivgi3ud wrote

I can’t get my head wrapped around it just yet. According to their calculations, for 75% offset I’d still be looking at 25k over 20 years, not accounting for local hoa regulation issues, not accounting for system standard degradation over the loan term, unable to get data from the providers myself and are locked into their app, not accounting for an increase to my insurance policy.

The list of issues really grows large for a basic setup.


GutFeelingonTheLong t1_ivgl1cm wrote

Well HOAs are legally bound to allow for solar installations (Section 202.010(b) of the Texas Property Code states that “a property owners’ association may not include or enforce a provision in a dedicatory instrument that prohibits or restricts a property owner from installing a solar energy device.”). Most warranties on our quotes were 25 years - the equipment under this warranty is guaranteed to produce around 90% on the guaranteed starting production. Not trying to talk you into anything. Just made sense financially in the long run for us.


seanflyon t1_ive4i98 wrote

My parents wanted to put solar on their roof, but the city required that they get full architectural plans for the building drawn up first, by a certified architect.


ChildrenAreOurDoom t1_ivf5hyu wrote

Well yes, you are adding load to an existing structure. That should be required everywhere.


seanflyon t1_ivfxvvw wrote

We are talking about adding less than 100 pounds to the roof, that is a 0% increase in loading. Requiring certified architectural drawings effectively outlaws solar on the roof of old buildings.

Walking on your roof is 100 times worse because not only is it more weight but it is vastly more concentrated.


ChildrenAreOurDoom t1_ivg0e7j wrote

I am an engineer. Any changes to a structure must be documented. Not just for "this time", but so that there is a record of modifications for "next time".

The permit process is to log changes to a building over its lifetime. Don't skip any part of that story.


seanflyon t1_ivg1m4c wrote

I didn't say anything about skipping the permitting process, I was talking about the permitting process itself.


Alis451 t1_ivfbhh4 wrote

> a certified architect.

certified engineer, not architect. architects are designers, engineers are the developers. Architect is "Where it goes", Engineer is "How it works". My brother had a collapsing column in his crawl space and needed an engineer to come assess in order to get a permit.


OTHERPPLSMAGE t1_ivd49a2 wrote

In tennessee the tennessee Valley authority has an application process for putting power back into the grid. Which includes changing the meter on your house to show what's pulled in and put back.

But they limit you to 12 panels on your house. Loop hole to that being you can add 2nd meter to your address. Which would then most likely allow an extra 12 panels. But for this house and it's 1 meter 1 fuse box we are maxed.

We opted out of putting back instead set it up to supplement what we use. Lowering our power bill bout 100+ a month.


Sleepybystander t1_ivddrlr wrote

The problem don't stop at private sector bribing officials, the public servants have to reject the bribes too.

Vote for politicians that push for renewables, instead of those who tells you they can bring cheaper oil because you'll never shake of the addiction to oil if the politicians are only coming up with short term solutions.


Fausterion18 t1_ive9ghj wrote

Nothing in your post is even remotely the truth.

  1. Power companies use renewable energy sources themselves. They don't like rooftop solar with feed in tariffs because you're not paying for transmission costs. Generation is only one part of the total cost of electricity. Plus utilities profit is highly regulated.

  2. Insurance companies do not care about your rooftop solar unless it makes it more expensive for them in the event of a claim such as in areas with frequent storm damage.

Solar works great in the US in areas that support it. And contrary to your claim, it's the solar lobby that has the upper hand over the utilities companies. In California for example, all new construction homes are required to have solar, and natural gas is scheduled to be banned on new homes starting next year.


VdomanFla t1_iveoz27 wrote

Try those points you make… but in Florida. Solar adoption is slow because the power companies want to generate ALL the power and charge you for it. Duke Energy in Fla has our asshole Governor in their pocket. Every time they meet, Duke gets more of an advantage.


Confused-Raccoon t1_ivcwqtg wrote

I reckon if one of them power companies bit the bullet and bought some of Nevada or new mexico, next year they'd be rolling in it. You ain't got any logistics to pay for to move the sun from where it's mined to where it's processed and all that.

Wait for the current generation, maybe the next one too, to die off and I think things will really start changing. Probably too late but hey ho.


orangutanoz t1_ive2oul wrote

Sad in Australia too. I pay more for the electricity from the grid than someone without solar and if I get an electric car their are no subsidies and I will have to pay an extra fee for kilometres driven.


EnergyTransitionNews OP t1_ivc5rs1 wrote

The share of renewable energy in Australia”s main grid soared to a new record of 68.7 per cent on Friday, easily beating the previous record of 64.1 per cent set on September 18.

The Australian Energy Market Operator says the new “instantaneous” renewable generation record was set 12:30pm, and was a 4.6% increase from the previous milestone set just a month earlier.

It also appears to be a new record for variable renewable energy – wind and solar – with an instantaneous share of 64 per cent


handsomeness t1_ivchm3g wrote

Why are you splitting percent into two words?


BothArmsWereBroken t1_ivcysml wrote

The spellings per cent and percent are both correct. The two-word spelling is more common in Canada and Britain, while the one-word spelling is preferred in the United States.


SadLlamasOnMars t1_ivdrdob wrote

Compare "per capita" with "percapita". Which makes more sense? Per cent is per 100.


handsomeness t1_ivekb7k wrote

Sure, but how many coffee beans per cent can I buy? Just another one of these silly things in the English language.


HardCounter t1_iveioa7 wrote

Haha. Ask a legitimate question and get downvoted to oblivion. Reddit combined with pompous euros is incredible. First i'm hearing of per cent too.

The only response to questions is punishment American!


trankillity t1_ivd3gll wrote

The problem with this is that the energy companies are doing everything they can to prevent solar being an attractive option. Most companies offer 4-6c/kWh for energy exported to the grid, while charging you 25-30c/kWh for energy imported from the grid.

So the best thing you can actually do with your energy is fully use it, but due to the constant sun in AU, that's nigh impossible - even with a small 5kW system.

If energy was brought back to a publicly owned service, I imagine they would very quickly build large battery banks to absorb the extra, and distribute it at night when it's not being generated as much. There are some companies that are working towards this system (known as a Virtual Power Plant - or VPP), but they are always heavily in favour of the company implementing them, not the customers.


RestlessAmbivert t1_ivdotc8 wrote

Are batteries more efficient in use and in terms of sustainably than physical storage systems, i.e., those that lift pillars/weighted sleds with excess power then convert it back to electricity when the weight is released during non-daylight hours?

Just curious if you knew offhand, hadn't looked into them in detail.


cowlinator t1_ive8pvd wrote

Pumped hydroelectricity storage is 87% efficient, but requires huge reservoirs. A brand new lithium ion battery is 88% efficient, but this goes down significantly over the battery lifespan. The efficiency of mechanical gravity storage systems varies widely but is usually under 80%


trankillity t1_ivdu7kc wrote

I don't know offhand sorry, but I imagine there's a LOT of energy lost in those systems due to the physics of mechanical energy transfer. That being said, I've heard there's some very efficient underground flywheel systems that have been implemented in the last few years.


Surur t1_iveo4u3 wrote

Yes, round trip is above 90% for batteries and around 80% for weights for example, and storing energy in batteries is a lot more energy dense than via gravity potential.


CamperStacker t1_ivepby6 wrote

Your numbers are childish.

Power has always only cost 4c/kwhour (8c after RET). The rest of the cost is transmission and distribution.

So no, your solar power isn’t worth 30c/kwhour - except at your house.

Allah there is no “extra”, solar didn’t reach 100%, so there has never been any ‘extra’ to store.


rutinerad t1_ivdzpep wrote

Virtual peepee sounds like a company for the future.


cowlinator t1_ive7v1f wrote

People are talking about using bi-directional EV chargers to store your house's power. I dont know if anybody is actually doing this yet tho


palitu t1_ivf61x0 wrote

There is a trial going on (probably more than one) search for v2g, vehicle to grid, trial


Shishakli t1_ivehbda wrote

>If energy was brought back to a publicly owned service

This is the best next step


Haquestions4 t1_ivf4j9y wrote

To be fair the company needs to maintain the grid, which is a big part of the bill.


trankillity t1_ivlnc28 wrote

The companies ALSO charge a daily access fee of around $1.20, which is where the vast majority of the cost associated with maintaining the grid would be accounted for.


Bryllant t1_ivd0rou wrote

The us needs to do this. Big expanses of open desert here in the US, not as much as Oz, but what are we waiting for.


kamoylan t1_ivdk3r8 wrote

Rooftop is better than in desert because:

  • Rooftops are already built environment. There is no ecological cost vs the ecological damage for installing solar in a desert.
    (A desert might be barren to us, but many creatures live there.)

  • The infrastructure for moving electricity in urban and suburban areas is already there. It might need modifying to cope with the changed loads caused by electricity flowing in from houses rather than out to houses, but there won't be the need for new, large electricity transmission lines.


FishMichigan t1_ive5zp0 wrote

Rooftop is $2.50-$3 a watt. Solar in a field is $1 a watt.


netz_pirat t1_ive7jlj wrote

Solar on my roof was 1,40€/ watt... And I didn't need any transmission lines on top of that.


WazWaz t1_iveqq66 wrote

Nonsense. Over 3 years ago I paid AU$12000 for 9kW.

And the benefit to the homeowner is way more, since they're saving retail electricity costs.


[deleted] t1_iviijce wrote



WazWaz t1_iviwc5c wrote

Ah, sorry, not US. You've been even more under siege from denialism than Australia has. Yes, that's the subsidized price. The maths is pretty simple - mine paid itself off a few months ago and is now all profit.


kamoylan t1_ive76p2 wrote

What is the total cost of ownership?

$1/watt in a field. Does that also include:

  • Aquiring the land?
  • Changing the land to suit the solar power? (e.g. changing the crop to not shade the cells, clearing trees, etc.)
  • Building the electricity transmission lines to where it'll be used?

$2.50 - $3/watt on a rooftop. The points above are already paid for (maybe electricity infrastructure needs upgrading).


Fausterion18 t1_ive9no3 wrote

The $1/watt includes all of those.

Rooftop solar is by far the most expensive option. The installation costs way more and the equipment does as well.


Surur t1_iveoddk wrote

According to Tony Seba solar panels are now becoming so cheap, they can be used as construction material.


Mernic666 t1_ivgrryd wrote

Up vote for having watched Seba's latest series. I think I rewatched 6 times over the weekend (road trip in sunny Australia). Heh.

I suspect that this example was hyperbole on Seba's part, as the retail cost of structural plywood is still a hell of a lot cheaper than solar panels in AU, and I don't think they have the same structural qualities.

However, the point that they can be used as a substitute for exterior wall flashing, even if the primary purpose of producing electricity is significantly reduced by not being positioned for maximum efficiency, was not lost on me.

I wonder what purposes they'll serve at the end of the decade when they have reduced in cost by another 75%, and the 'possibility space' continues to open...


Surur t1_ivgvo29 wrote

Funnily enough, I came across a real-life example where a guy on youtube said the same thing, but in practice.

With the price of wood these days it may actually be true.


hangingonthetelephon t1_ivdwgmb wrote

I think another benefit of rooftop solar related to your second point is that it also lowers the demand on the grid. It also adds some ability to develop disaster resiliency in terms of having hyper-local power generation.

Solar still needs to contend with the fact that demand peaks are not aligned with output peaks (ie the famous “duck curve”) - which is of course where storage and other power sources need to be used in tandem. Still, rooftop and large solar installations will both need to be used.


Neil_Live-strong t1_ivevij8 wrote

Thank you for pointing that out. Many people see no downside to solar but if a solar farm is being built, then step 1 is to build a massive parking lot. Anywhere you wouldn’t want a parking lot, you wouldn’t want a solar farm. There’s plenty of rooftops that can have solar panels on them before we start building massive lots all over the place.


Jarms48 t1_ive8uor wrote

In some places in Australia you can even get free rooftop solar. The local government pays for it.


abc_warriors t1_ivlituw wrote

Meanwhile in new Zealand

Renewables increased to 82.1% for 2021


oiseauvert989 t1_iwsjytv wrote

That's great but NZ has a huge amount of hydro power which means it is playing on easy mode.

NZ really should be at 100% renewable already. NZ has more or less the same situation as Uruguay but Uruguay is already at 100%. The hydro already exists, all that is needed are a few solar panels and turbines and the job is done.

Of course Australia also needs to up it's game. 70% shouldn't be a once off for Australia, it should be the average for the year.


abc_warriors t1_iwskhpj wrote

Totally agree. Our government declared a climate emergency last year but there is not a push for solar on roofs with a subsidy or alternative power


Ristar87 t1_ivenzm6 wrote

I know the United States doesn't like the private sector but it's always surprised me that American's haven't created a roll out plan to put solar panels on top of every commercial building. Sure, one panel may not be efficient but if you look at it like a macro issue - cutting your fossil fuel costs by 25% or more nationwide, it would be worth it.

The inefficiency of installing and maintaining the panels would create 10's of thousands of jobs and reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. It's literally win/win.


danocogreen t1_ivfds0a wrote

Why the top of parking garages don’t have panels baffles even more, if they had panels the entire structure over time would become carbon neutral in a matter of a decade or two. Parking lots hold the same value, especially school parking lots. The benefit producing power while providing shade to vehicles is could also benefit need of not having to idle vehicles for A/C during the hot months.


Merkin-Jerky t1_ivfnbht wrote

We as humans, have known this for over a hundred years. The big oil corps have crushed all data like this to keep their stranglehold on the world. Time for those dinos to dissappear.


Cygnus__A t1_ivfs2ow wrote

Unfortunately, the $77,000 quote I just got to put it on my house killed any interest had in going solar.


coolbeans31337 t1_iwabsri wrote

Yep, your payback period to breakeven would exceed the lifespan of the panels.


FuturologyBot t1_ivcan88 wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/EnergyTransitionNews:

The share of renewable energy in Australia”s main grid soared to a new record of 68.7 per cent on Friday, easily beating the previous record of 64.1 per cent set on September 18.

The Australian Energy Market Operator says the new “instantaneous” renewable generation record was set 12:30pm, and was a 4.6% increase from the previous milestone set just a month earlier.

It also appears to be a new record for variable renewable energy – wind and solar – with an instantaneous share of 64 per cent

Please reply to OP's comment here:


[deleted] t1_ive7uq2 wrote



Surur t1_iveos4l wrote

It's unusual for a professor to be wrong, but here we are.

For everything that is potentially in short supply, there is a substitute, and while it may not be as efficient, it's usually a lot cheaper.


Environmental_Ad5786 t1_ivgbwob wrote

And then you have California making it less economically viable to have roof top solar because PG&E needs to pay for massive settlements and deferred maintenance


Hall_Michelle t1_iwarpfp wrote

Not only is solar energy a renewable resource, but it's also environmentally friendly, which is why more and more countries are investing in solar power. In addition to rooftop solar panels, another great way to reduce your reliance on fossil fuels is by using boron instead of traditional materials like coal or oil.


k20350 t1_ivdtq0l wrote

The thing that kills me with the Tesla roof is it's warrantied for 25 years. There isn't a goddamn electronic in existence that lasts 25 years in the elements without significant maintenance. They have to have a loophole to get out. No matter what those panels are going to take a beating outside in whatever climate.


netz_pirat t1_ive7sgx wrote

I doubt it. In Germany started in 2000 with large scale investments in renewables, so there are plenty first-gen solar panels out there. And I haven't heard of major issues. Efficiency goes down over time, yes, but other than that, it seems as unless you drop a mobile crane on the roof, they hold up fairly well.


Fausterion18 t1_ive9s0e wrote

Lol imagine trusting in a Tesla warranty when they had to be sued to remove defective solar panels they installed on Walmart roofs because they kept catching fire.

This is a problem specific to Tesla tho, the other companies are generally much more reliable.


Masark t1_ivfmu1a wrote

25 years is pretty standard for solar. A few manufacturers offer 30 years.


Confused-Raccoon t1_ivcwwn8 wrote

I feel like Solar power in Aus is cheating. You get a bit of sun fairly often, compared to other places.


Holy... I thought there might be a sense of humour here. Nevermind hey.


reid0 t1_ivcxve1 wrote

It’s not cheating, it’s using what you’ve got. Iceland isn’t cheating by using geothermal. If it’s there to use, might as well use it.


wtfduud t1_ivdltjp wrote

South-Western US has the same kind of landscape. Might finally turn the unbearable sun in Arizona into something positive.


rethardus t1_ivdrffg wrote

Cheating to do what...

What's the competition? What happens when they "beat" you?


laxativefx t1_ive85p6 wrote

It’s as much cheating as hydroelectric is in countries with snow melt or tropical monsoons, I guess.


Ouchqt t1_ivednlz wrote

Unless you live in Victoria where its winter for 8 months of the year


loolem t1_ivdtrtt wrote

Wow three people didn’t get the sarcasm in your comment. Yeah mate we are lucky!