[HN Gopher] Cheap DIY solar fence design
___________________________________________________________________
Cheap DIY solar fence design
Author : kamaraju
Score : 206 points
Date : 2025-10-15 19:23 UTC (9 days ago)
(HTM) web link (joeyh.name)
(TXT) w3m dump (joeyh.name)
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| A wider shot of the installation would help-the available
| pictures make it appear as if the panels are constantly going to
| be shaded.
|
| $1100 for mounting $1000 worth of panels does not seem terrible
| for something that anyone proficient with a hammer could
| accomplish.
| reedlaw wrote:
| I found this:
| https://joeyh.name/blog/pics/solar_fence_with_powerracks.jpg
| DaveZale wrote:
| what are the current tariffs on solar panels?
|
| I've wanted to install home solar for years now. It's difficult
| in my area. At first, the salespeople would ghost me after
| learning I didn't want or need financing. Then they lied about
| waived connection fees for use of a battery to sell power back to
| the utility during evening peak hours. Then the Federal
| incentives vanished. Now... the tariffs.
|
| So our approach is to remain in the bottom 2% of electicity
| consumption for our area.
|
| Stability in government is something we don't appreciate until
| it's gone.
| sagarm wrote:
| SignatureSolar has panels for $0.25/w. The tariffs are a
| nothing burger.
|
| If you're paying someone else to do it, the panels will likely
| be <10% of the cost.
| kragen wrote:
| That's still 150% higher than the wholesale price overseas,
| and maybe if paying someone to install an appliance costs 9x
| more than the appliance does, you should think about doing it
| yourself.
| sagarm wrote:
| Oh yeah, DIY is the way to go. But even for a DIY project
| the other stuff you need -- inverters, batteries,
| optimizers, mounts, wiring, transfer switch -- will end up
| being the majority.
| kragen wrote:
| Maybe you should figure out how to do without some of it.
| You don't need MPPT optimization if buying more panels is
| cheaper. You don't need much battery if you run the
| washer in the daytime and use thermal storage to heat or
| cool the house at night. You don't need a transfer switch
| if you don't connect the solar to the grid outlets. You
| don't need inverters if you run things on 48V DC, which
| also greatly reduces the safety risks of wiring problems.
| I think Joey's house has DC appliances, though I don't
| remember.
| MichaelNolan wrote:
| What is the safety benefit of 48v? I am not an
| electrician, but I just finished diy/installing a 48v
| system, and when I was doing some research I read the
| opposite. 48v is *cheaper* since you don't need as thick
| wires, but *more dangerous* since it has a higher chance
| of arc faults and the voltage is sufficiently high that
| it can cross the skin barrier and kill you.
|
| Though all three are pretty safe as long as you buy the
| appropriate equipment, and take reasonable precautions
| when installing it.
| kragen wrote:
| DC has a higher danger of arc faults than AC, and 48V is
| enough to sustain a short arc. But 48Vdc has less danger
| of either shock or arc faults than 120Vdc, and DC has a
| lower risk of shock than AC, because it still _usually_
| can 't drive enough current through your skin to kill
| you. But you are correct that people can and do die from
| 48Vdc shocks, for example when their welding gloves are
| soaked with sweat or they're immersed in water.
|
| You need thicker wires with 48V than with 120V or
| especially 240V, and the higher currents required at 48V
| can create more risk of fire from overheating conductors,
| for example in a wire that's too thin or a spring contact
| in an outlet that's worn out.
|
| Perhaps you are implicitly comparing 48Vdc to 24Vdc,
| 12Vdc, or 6Vdc, rather than the 240Vac or 120Vac I was
| comparing it to. Those lower voltages do indeed need even
| thicker wires and pose even less risk of shock or arc
| faults than 48Vdc. I think 24V is the minimum to maintain
| an arc in air at atmospheric pressure, and it's really
| hard to get one started using a 24V supply; you need a
| high-frequency start circuit or a substantial amount of
| inductance in series.
|
| 48V is the maximum usually considered safe enough to not
| require compliance with any kind of electrical code; an
| expert electrician from North America once told me that
| it's in a category known to electricians as "bullshit
| wiring".
| MichaelNolan wrote:
| Oh okay that makes sense. Yeah I misunderstood your
| original comment. I was comparing 48vdc to 24vdc and
| 12vdc, not 120 or 240 ac.
| mindslight wrote:
| > _DC has a lower risk of shock than AC, because it still
| usually can 't drive enough current through your skin to
| kill you_
|
| What? Common wisdom is that DC shock risk is worse than
| AC, as DC makes your muscles clench up and so it's harder
| to let go of whatever you grabbed. That "120Vac" is
| actually 170V peak though, which does increase shock risk
| for equivalent power transferred (maybe this is what you
| meant?).
| kragen wrote:
| No, AC also makes your muscles clench up, and it's even
| worse. At a given RMS voltage, AC is both more painful
| and more dangerous as a source of shocks. Edison was kind
| of right about that.
|
| It's complicated, though. If you're running a low-level
| current through your body for a long time, like in the
| neighborhood of a milliamp, DC is much worse because it
| migrates your electrolytes around. And if you're using
| metal electrodes it might be migrating the metal from the
| anode into your body. So TENS units are strictly AC, with
| no DC bias permitted.
| epistasis wrote:
| Wow, that's fantastic pricing. Globally, the average is
| $0.089/W, in the US, $0.27/W:
|
| https://bsky.app/profile/solarchase.bsky.social/post/3m3md7k.
| ..
| buckle8017 wrote:
| This lady makes the error of taking about California as
| having a grid. For contracting purposes it does.
|
| For grid stability purposes it does not.
| epistasis wrote:
| Your pedantry is incorrect, and does not reflect usage of
| experts.
| buckle8017 wrote:
| You're wrong and should feel bad for down voting me.
| epistasis wrote:
| I didn't downvote you, and wouldn't if I could! I can't
| downvote my direct replies.
|
| As for being "wrong," you're insisting that there's a
| narrow definition of a term when in general practice it
| is not used that way, and where the current usage causes
| zero confusion. You may be trying to change usage, but
| telling people "you're wrong" when they are not is not a
| convincing way. Showing that the existing usage of terms
| causes confusion _might_ me more convincing, but it 's
| hard.
| nine_k wrote:
| Use second-hand panels, hire a contractor to install them, and
| another contractor to then install and connect batteries and an
| inverter. Ignore the possibility to sell energy back to the
| grid, charge your batteries instead.
|
| Now, you would have built not a cutting-edge system, but a
| relatively inexpensive one, with a minimum of red tape and
| financing shenanigans.
|
| (Edited: typos.)
| daemonologist wrote:
| It is very complicated, but for the countries which are major
| producers, for most companies, it's between 64% and 430%. China
| (~85% of production) is 140%.
|
| https://www.infolink-group.com/energy-article/solar-topic-it...
|
| But even putting aside the tariffs, I'm in the same boat as you
| - residential/consumer solar in the US is a disaster -
| everything goes through shady installation companies, the labor
| and permitting costs are enormous, it's nearly impossible to
| buy panels yourself at the market rate.
| ericd wrote:
| What would you call "the market rate"? You can get pallets of
| panels right now for ~$0.30/watt at eg Signature Solar (no
| affiliation, just where I got ours). That might be more than
| what's available globally, but it's also not a very
| significant driver of the system cost at that level (our
| inverter cost more, the ground mounts cost more, the the
| batteries cost more, the electrician final hookup work cost
| more, etc).
| kragen wrote:
| It's six times what's available globally for "low cost"
| panels, and three times the "mainstream" price, which is
| driving the other system components you mention to lower
| prices. After all, you can power appliances from solar
| panels without any of those other things.
| ericd wrote:
| Without an inverter/wiring/mounts? Do you mean RV-style
| DC appliances?
|
| Unfortunately, I think Americans are much too heavily
| invested in current infrastructure to consider going all-
| in on those...
| kragen wrote:
| Yes. Or cellphones, laptops, cordless drills, LED lights,
| etc., which all run on low-voltage DC.
| aitchnyu wrote:
| My 10kW system in India will pay back in 33 months and we
| saved up cash, so I'm surprised US systems need loans and pay
| back over 7 years.
| hdgvhicv wrote:
| I'm guessing your labour costs are very small compared to
| the panels.
| jwr wrote:
| I'm in Poland and every solar installation I've looked at
| has a pay back time of around 5 years. The main reason is
| subsidized electricity -- consumer prices are artificially
| low. If you take commercial pricing, it's closer to 2-3
| years.
| alias_neo wrote:
| India is clearly different to the West in this regard; a
| typical installation in the UK is much smaller than 10kW,
| more in the 3-5kWp range, and you're looking at PS6000
| installed without a battery, and over PS10,000 with a
| battery (circa 10kWh).
|
| A 10kWp installation with a battery will easily cost you
| PS15,000-PS20,000, with an annual energy bill of ~PS2000
| it's easy to hit 7-10 years ROI.
|
| To put some numbers to my specific case, my 7kWp system
| with 12kWh battery was ~PS13,000 in summer 2025, and about
| 55-60% of the cost came from scaffolding and labour.
| blaufast wrote:
| I DIYd this with permits and interconnect in the SF Bay Area.
| I've had no power bill for years now, and I have two hot tubs.
|
| Panels and enphase on Craigslist are so cheap you don't have to
| worry about it. Max out what you're allowed with your main
| electrical panel size and you'll never regret it. Don't even
| consider doing less than the maximum. You will never meet
| anybody who believes they added enough solar after a year of
| ownership
| just-the-wrk wrote:
| This is amazing, thank you. I love the use of Ironridge rails for
| mounting
| gnabgib wrote:
| Featured in his:
|
| _Offgrid Electric Car_ (29 points, 6 months ago, 9 comments)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43764598
|
| _Aiming at December_
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42412256
| nerdralph wrote:
| I used 605W LONGi TOPCon panels for my vertical PV experiment. If
| they are too tall, 440-450W JA or Jinko TOPCon panels are 176cm.
|
| Ditching the rails and bolting to the panel mounting holes with
| galvanized angle is a lot cheaper.
| RatchetWerks wrote:
| I've been considering this for a while. I have a fence that is
| south facing, with no major obstructions.
|
| I want solar but I don't want the liability of a roof install
| with leaks and servicing.
|
| I've landed either on a solar pergola or a solar fence . Both
| concepts seem like a no brainer.
|
| I like the solar fence since it allows you to cleverly avoid
| setback requirements that normal structures have.
|
| I'm glad people like Joey are doing projects like this.
| woodpanel wrote:
| > _the liability of a roof install with leaks and servicing_
|
| Also expect a dove colony to enjoy the new comfort. All your
| neighbors will thank you for their homes turning into guano
| rocks, a sight once reserved to adventurous travelers.
|
| Their nests, which will quickly accumulate under your roof's
| panels, offer not one but two existential threats for your
| home: They can catch fire when too dry, but also act as a water
| barrier, pushing the water _into_ your roof.
| GordonS wrote:
| Some chicken wire can solve this problem.
| alias_neo wrote:
| You're being downvoted for perhaps missing that there is a
| solution, bird-mesh or skirts, but your point is absolutely
| accurate.
|
| We were not quoted for the mesh in our install and the day
| the panels were fitted we had a bird build a nest on another
| part of the roof, some quick research suggested that people
| in the area _highly_ recommend getting it, so we had it added
| at an absolutely ridiculous markup that added a whole year to
| our ROI but it needed to be done.
| woodpanel wrote:
| Well it's not a surprise that green energy fanatics act
| fanatic, is it?
|
| Obviously there is a solution, but I'd say the vast
| majority of either fanatics or normies tinkering with the
| idea of installing a solar roof know anything about those
| severe problems.
|
| I've installed one recently. I've asked every prospective
| contractor for the job beforehand about whether I should
| get some mesh around it. All said they never heard of such
| a problem. And if virtually all the people that installed
| all these roofs in your area tell the same story, what do
| you do?
|
| Half a year later the whole block turned into Guano dump
| and once the plague is there, mesh around the panels won't
| do - you need to install spikes as well, because as long as
| not every solar roof in your vicinity is "meshed" these
| colonies are still going to use your roof for their
| "business" as well.
|
| EDIT: Since you've mentioned ROI, the premium for
| installing the panels with the mesh directly would have
| been around 500EUR, having to do it separately (plus the
| additional spikes) cost 2500EUR
| alias_neo wrote:
| > the vast majority of either fanatics or normies
| tinkering with the idea of installing a solar roof know
| anything about those severe problems
|
| I think you missed the word "don't" in there, in which
| case, totally agree.
|
| Despite the installer I used being highly recommended and
| supposedly extremely reputable (and owned by a major
| energy supplier), they made no effort to educate me on
| the various options, I came into this knowing little to
| nothing about having a solar installation in my home and
| what scenarios, and solutions were available.
|
| Once I'd agreed to the install, I spent days researching
| and learned there was a _huge_ host of choices,
| decisions, configurations etc they just didn't bother to
| tell me about.
|
| I had to go back and do the upsell for them because I had
| learned I needed these things (such as the bird mesh).
|
| Best I can tell, is that green incentives in the UK are
| pushing installers to churn out cookie cutter installs at
| an alarming rate regardless of its suitability; at no
| point did they discuss whether I wanted blackout
| protection (gateway/off grid), didn't ask or even mention
| the existence of bird mesh, no questions of monitoring,
| massively under specified the battery capacity for the
| size of my home, and didn't account for the fact my wife
| and I work from home every day.
|
| On the mesh point, that's how they got me; they know the
| cost of installing it later is immense, so they over-
| charged to add it to my purchase when the scaffolding was
| already up and installers already on site, and I had no
| choice or it would have cost me 4-5x more to do it later.
| nerdralph wrote:
| We install rodent guard mesh on all our residential
| rooftop installations. The Canadian Electrical Code
| requires it in most instances. Rule 64-210 5):
|
| Where the dc arc-fault protection referred to in Rule
| 64-216 is not located at the module, photovoltaic source
| circuit insulated conductors and cables installed on or
| above a building and installed in accordance with
| Subrules 1), 2), and 3) shall be provided with mechanical
| protection in the form of an enclosed raceway or other
| acceptable material to protect against damage from
| rodents.
| pjc50 wrote:
| You don't have to bang on about "fanaticism", but yes the
| anti-bird fitting is an important part of the project that is
| not often mentioned, and I had to have it retrofitted as
| well. Cost almost two years worth of electricity.
|
| Near me there are new builds with panels integrated flush
| into the roof. This seems like a much better way to do it,
| and will become the norm long term.
| bradfa wrote:
| Make sure to clearly read your jurisdiction's setback
| requirements. Mine does not comprehend solar on a fence, it
| only clearly defines rules for privacy fences, solar on
| existing permitted structures, and dedicated ground mount solar
| installations. Solar on a fence isn't a configuration it
| considers so I expect if I would apply for a permit to build a
| solar fence that I would have to convince my AHJ that it's a
| privacy fence in order to use fence setback allowances, which
| would be tricky and likely not be a quick process.
|
| Talk to your AHJ before spending any money.
| RatchetWerks wrote:
| Good call! I'm purely in the idea phase, I will definitely
| take your advice as I get closer
| bawolff wrote:
| > The cost of mounting solar panels nowadays is often higher than
| the cost of the panels.
|
| This fact always surprises me. What goes into a mount that makes
| it so expensive? Its essentially just a piece of metal, right?
|
| The article goes into the parts for their custom fence project,
| but for the more typical case, why can't the metal mounts just be
| mass produced cheaply?
| tguvot wrote:
| Work
| xixixao wrote:
| The cost of barista preparing a coffee is often higher than the
| cost of beans and milk.
|
| And so on :)
| jandrese wrote:
| I wonder if you couldn't do something incredibly simple like
| get some pressure treated 4x4 posts and use a router to make
| shallow slots for the panels to sit in. Plant them the right
| width and run a 2x4 along the bottom to let the panel rest on
| it.
|
| What is it about solar panels that makes everyone want to use
| these really expensive mounting solutions? Is it just because
| they're trying to engineer a full 30 year lifespan right from
| the start?
|
| You will still need the conduit for the wire of course, at
| least up to the inverter. That will add up pretty quickly if
| your mounts are spread out.
| zie wrote:
| You have to account for heavy wind loads.
| seb1204 wrote:
| Indeed, snow in some areas as well. Also animals.
| alias_neo wrote:
| And for a solar fence, don't forget, sometimes, humans.
| jabl wrote:
| I suspect that it's difficult to keep the post sufficiently
| still that the panels don't fall off those slots?
| Particularly if there's ground frost in the winters in your
| area.
|
| Of course it's possible to make it work, but if you need a
| concrete foundation in the ground to keep the posts immobile
| you're destroying the economics of it.
|
| Then again, why don't those 'really expensive mounting
| solutions' suffer from the same issue?
| nerdralph wrote:
| It is hard to set the posts with tight tolerances. I used
| angle brackets to get +/- 20mm of adjustment room.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Also wooden posts can do very odd things while aging.
| Twisting, cracking, bending. They are typically much more
| mobile than steel or aluminum.
| edent wrote:
| Mounting as a verb, not a noun.
|
| It is the cost of scaffolding to get up to the roof, labour to
| install the panels, electrical certification, etc.
| qmmmur wrote:
| Insurances too.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| That costs something, yes, but the actual hardware itself is
| absurdly expensive for what it amounts to - a few bolts, a
| few simple aluminium profiles.
|
| I have several solar arrays at home - roof mounted, ground
| mounted.
|
| The first array I ended up shelling out something like EUR2k
| for a mounting kit for a dozen panels.
|
| The second array I went to a local builders merchant and
| bought a pile of aluminium profiles, and got a sack of cheap
| panel mounting bolts and clamps from China. 30 panels, about
| EUR200 in mounting hardware, and I went for the absolute bare
| minimum truss that would support them and be rigid through
| extreme weather. Commercially, it was looking like EUR3,500
| just for the ground mounting kit. My labour cost was my sorry
| ass hauling gear up a cliff like a pack-goat and drilling
| bedrock to anchor them. Actually, the rock anchors were one
| of the expensive parts of that array - I think next time I'm
| just doing deeper holes, threaded bar and grout.
|
| So yeah. The noun is bloody expensive, never mind the verb.
| Xss3 wrote:
| Most people don't live on a cliffside to be fair. I wouldnt
| have to carry anything for more than 20ft.
| bawolff wrote:
| I appreciate that, but my impression is that even just the
| materials are more expensive before you take into account
| labour costs, which is the part that boggles my mind.
| FrojoS wrote:
| The panels are very light and quite flexible, the mounting
| material is much heavier and has to provide the stiffness.
| treis wrote:
| Is there a reason you can't lay them flat on the roof?
| conductr wrote:
| I laid a set of panels on my low slope shed roof and just never
| secured them. They're offset about 1/2" which enough that water
| flows under them and off the shed.
|
| I'm in a very windy location but they are heavy enough to not
| budge.
| seb1204 wrote:
| Yes, works for 99.x% of the time until it doesn't.
| conductr wrote:
| With mounting costing more than replacement, I like those
| odds. They've been up several years and have survived many
| 70+ MPH storms. At this point I'm actually curious what
| kind of conditions would cause them to move/lift.
|
| It's obviously not appropriate for all cases. But the
| original article, the guy could have gotten by with some
| zip ties. I'm of opinion that a lot of mounting is over
| engineered.
| AngryData wrote:
| Markup on the mounting systems, installers not willing to take
| the liability of installing expensive and heavy panels with
| random garbage hardware that is piercing a roof, roof work
| being pretty miserable and harder and more dangerous than 99%
| of jobs, and you are dealing with electrical systems and
| competing within the licensed electrician labor market.
|
| A lot of construction work in general is priced around labor
| being atleast 50% of the total cost.
| energy123 wrote:
| This discussion is naturally focused on Western countries but
| in countries with GDP below $5k, the total cost of 9kwp
| rooftop solar with battery is less than $10k. Western
| countries could have this too but it's not allowed due to
| immigration restrictions and industry regulations preventing
| tradespeople from flying in and doing it for cheap on your
| house.
| seb1204 wrote:
| Someone flying in and mounting something to my roof is just
| asking for trouble. I would think the gap in expectations
| (actual and implicit) is just too big. Not mentioning what
| your insurance will say.
| energy123 wrote:
| This zero tolerance attitude for problems is the reason
| it's so expensive (aside from industry lobbying &
| protectionism). It's better to be pragmatic and allow
| some level of risk in the name of more sensibly balancing
| competing objectives (risk vs affordability).
| stonogo wrote:
| Fortunately, most local laws in the US require a
| permitting process where the installer has to demonstrate
| licensure and/or bonding, so that someone with a
| defective sense of risk doesn't get people killed. Happy
| to pay extra to avoid your scenario.
| energy123 wrote:
| Easy opinion to hold when you have lots of money.
| stonogo wrote:
| It's very difficult to hold opinions when you're dead, so
| I've no qualms about erring on the side of safety.
| pixl97 wrote:
| It's the people who don't have money that are at a much
| higher risk of injury or death due to improper
| installation and maintenance. It's a definite trade off
| we make in the west after large numbers of people
| suffered from lax safety standards. Simply put, if there
| is no compulsion to be safe, far too many people wont
| kube-system wrote:
| People with money can get quality work in any country.
| Regulations prevent unscrupulous businesses from taking
| advantage of the poor.
| tb_technical wrote:
| Conversely, if you've never worked in a factory or a
| shipyard, I don't want to hear your opinion on excessive
| safety regulations.
|
| I've seen OSHA violations of such severity, of such
| imminent danger, you couldn't get a tailor pin up my
| sphincter with a jackhammer.
|
| They exist for a reason, and you're going to have to do
| your project on the cheap by yourself, sorry.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| /me remembers being on a customer site 5 years ago and
| watching the owner get material off a high shelf by
| standing on a pallet held up by a fully-extended
| forklift.
|
| The other engineer and I just looked at each other and
| quietly minded our own business :-)
| bradfa wrote:
| This is a huge part of why solar costs so much more in
| the USA than in many developing countries. Every
| jurisdiction in the USA has its own rules and most
| jurisdictions have very strict safety and permitting (to
| make sure of safety) rules.
|
| The safety rules do make things much safer but also
| noticeably increase cost. It's a tradeoff we as a society
| have decided is worth it. Maybe at some point we will
| change that decision and then costs will quickly come
| down, capitalism is very good at meeting the minimum
| requirements in order to make sales.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Is the cost difference between Australia and the US
| really down to safety standards?
|
| Or is more likely a general antipathy to solving
| beaurocratic problems if it will endanger fossil fuel
| profits?
|
| Subtly different safety rules by region (or any other
| type of rule variation) is just a symptom of the latter
| issue.
| bradfa wrote:
| What are typical costs in Australia?
|
| Typical roof mounted installs in the USA are in the
| $3-4/Watt range, inclusive of parts, labor, and
| permitting for professional installation. Tax credits and
| other incentives can reduce this.
|
| Code compliant ground mount installs via DIY are in the
| $2.75-$4/Watt range, inclusive of all parts and
| permitting and assuming labor is free but that a licensed
| electrician is needed for final grid tie. Tax incentives
| can reduce this. Not needing permits or a licensed
| electrician also can reduce it. Alternatives such as
| using wood racking instead of metal is also cheaper but
| this may violate electric code.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Googled this:
|
| >As of March 2025, the cost of residential solar energy
| in Australia averaged just AUD $0.90 (USD $0.59) per watt
| --less than a quarter of the U.S. average.
|
| It's generally attributed to consistent sensible
| regulation which has created a competitive market and
| reduced any time wasting paperwork.
| bradfa wrote:
| In my research this past summer considering solar in the
| USA, it was difficult for me to find just new with-
| warranty solar panels in low quantities (I only want 5kW
| to 10kW of panels) for a DIY install for less than
| $0.30/W including delivery and sales tax. To hit $0.59/W
| total cost is mind boggling to me.
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| In The Netherlands it's EUR0.90-1.30/kWp for installation
| of rooftop solar, everything included. Here in Belgium
| it's maybe 10-20% more I think, no permits required.
| Neither country have particularly low labour costs.
| subscribed wrote:
| Mhm, industries lobbying for lower standards, getting rid
| of rules and safety, allowing for self-regulation.
|
| Case in point:
| https://i.tribune.com.pk/media/images/Grenfell-
| tower17254759...
|
| This was literal "bonfire of the regulations":
| https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/this-is-the-
| bonfire-o...
|
| Regulations and codes are written in blood and corpses.
| Don't be so quick to discount them.
| energy123 wrote:
| That's not the case when it comes to professional bodies.
| Tradespeople are similar to surgeons. They use licensing
| as a tool to restrict labor so their wages remain
| artificially high and they can parasitically collect
| economic rents. Getting overseas labor banned is part of
| this.
|
| I'm not in favor of throwing away all regulations and all
| licensing, mind you. But some pragmatic rebalancing needs
| to happen. If I go to India I do not automatically die
| inside a house with a $9500 solar installation. That'd be
| much more likely to happen on an American road with its
| 40000/yr fatalities that everyone casually accepts as a
| pragmatic trade-off worth having ;)
| mschild wrote:
| > They use licensing as a weapon to restrict labor supply
|
| In parts they do, but that doesn't mean that licensing
| doesn't have a point. They should not be able to limit
| the licenses but testing and training should absolutely
| happen. Especially for critical things like electricity.
|
| > If I go to India I do not automatically die inside a
| house with a $9500 solar installation.
|
| You don't but your chances are higher than a country with
| enforced minimum standards.
|
| https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/08/01/electrocution-
| kills-1...
| TimorousBestie wrote:
| > That'd be much more likely to happen on an American
| road with its 40000/yr fatalities that everyone casually
| accepts as a pragmatic trade-off worth having ;)
|
| India's traffic fatality rate is 12.6 per 100k, which is
| about the same as the US' at 14.2. India has a very low
| car ownership rate, and US a very high one, so I dunno
| that I'd be so quick to judge in your shoes.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tr
| affic-r...
| tb_technical wrote:
| It's likely the traffic fatalities are much higher than
| they appear on Wikipedia.
|
| https://www.dataforindia.com/road-accident-deaths/
| tb_technical wrote:
| Since we're making ethnocentric assumptions and making
| comparisons between the USA and India, perhaps our
| building standards encourage safe public infrastructure?
|
| Perhaps if India was more like the USA, safe road travel
| would improve - and consequently - their 172k traffic
| fatalities would fall to a more acceptable level (by the
| way there are doubts this figure is correct - people
| speculate it's much higher)?
|
| And before you complain about the population difference,
| I checked the per capita rates of traffic fatalities.
| India outpaces the USA by quite a bit.
|
| By the way, this is all an apples and oranges comparison.
| Building standards has nothing to do with road
| fatalities.
| foobarian wrote:
| The problem is not the customer safety, it's the
| worker's. Look into how things used to be done in the
| "good old days" and see if you'd be ok going to that kind
| of job. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=CRN
| 1913010...
| toss1 wrote:
| >>(risk vs affordability)
|
| OK, so in your scenario, who will take the risk?
|
| There is a very significant risk of one or more workers
| falling off the roof and getting killed or injured so
| badly they can never work again. Do you plan to take that
| risk and if it happens pay death benefits to the fallen
| worker's family or cover the medical and disability
| expenses? Or, to you expect to just say "tough luck" to
| the worker? Or, will you pay an insurer to cover it?
|
| There is a very significant risk the roof will pierced in
| a way that it no longer works to exclude water, magnified
| by using materials & tools not up to standards. Will you
| take on the risk when the roof fails and leaks, and
| remove the installation, repair the roof, they re-do the
| installation? Do you expect the overseas contractors to
| come back and fix it (and how will you enforce that)? Or,
| will you require them to follow some established standard
| to reduce the risk, and/or try to get insurance/warranty
| to cover the risk?
|
| It is easy and trivial to complain about "excess"
| regulations, ignoring the fact that many of them were
| bought with blood and funerals. And yes, some are a pain
| in the arse, and seem unnecessary for your particular
| situation. But unless you have actually considered the
| _WHOLE_ problem, and can post a better solution, it just
| comes of as immature whinging. So, how do you expect to
| handle the risks?
| scythe wrote:
| Pragmatism would be not worrying about solar rooftops and
| small-scale solar as an outcome at all. It's cheaper to
| build solar at large scale, for basically the same
| reasons associated with scaling up anything else. The
| primary reason that there has been a boom of small-scale
| DIY solar is that the energy utilities are so corrupt
| that random individuals are keeping up with them.
| citrin_ru wrote:
| If we are talking about electrical installations flying in
| is a bad idea because the code / regulations are different
| in different countries but what would help is making it
| faster to get a license. In both the UK and the US one
| needs may hours of apprenticeship (around 10000h AFAIK) so
| it takes years to get a license. If apprenticeship hours
| will be reduced and amended with a stricter exam labor
| supply will increase IMHO.
| theoreticalmal wrote:
| I will be DIY installing grid connected 8.1kW roof mounted
| system in Western USA FOR UNDER 10k USD. No battery though
| hawaiianbrah wrote:
| Where are you sourcing materials? I was planning my own
| 11 kWh system with selfsolar.com at $1.50/watt but now
| think I'm going to buy a pallet of panels from
| a1solarstore.com at a fifth of the price. Still need to
| figure out the supports and draft the permit set.
| tb_technical wrote:
| I know contractors travel for work, but flying in? Wouldn't
| the cost for shipping all the contractor boxes, renting
| living quarters, local food, and aircraft fare rapidly eat
| into the savings? Not to mention the downward pressure on
| wages this would have...
| thelastgallon wrote:
| > it's not allowed due to immigration restrictions and
| industry regulations preventing tradespeople
|
| US doesn't need immigrants. There is a lot cheaper labor
| available[1], $7.23 to $14.45 per month. Many companies use
| this nearly free labor infrastructure[2]. There is no
| reason solar installers can't train and use them.
|
| [1]https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/wages/
|
| [2]https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/usa-
| more...
| woodpanel wrote:
| > _What goes into a mount that makes it so expensive?_
|
| Human Labor, the most neglected factor when discussing rising
| infrastructure costs.
| mckn1ght wrote:
| I'm finishing up a DIY ground install and just the conductor
| from the array to the service panel cost the same as about 3
| panels. It's about a 150 meter run.
|
| Some very rough numbers from memory:
|
| - 20 panel + 10 microinverter bundle: $5600
|
| - cost to ship the bundle: $700
|
| - conductor: $450
|
| - steel/pvc conduit for conductor sheath: $350
|
| - strut for racking: $500
|
| - 3" steel conduit for ground mount: $5000
|
| - concrete and tube forms for vertical post footers: $400
|
| - augur/trencher rental: $500
|
| - brackets/fasteners: $600
|
| - tools: $500
|
| - electrician work to upgrade service panel: $2500
|
| - electrician work for hookup and disconnect install: still TBD
| but I'm guessing more thousands
|
| - time spent x my current hourly salary as a programmer: I
| don't want to think about it haha
|
| Probably a bunch of stupid little stuff I'm forgetting. Just
| gas to go on supply runs is probably over $100, although I
| always tried to batch runs with other normal errands.
|
| The most expensive parts of projects can be surprising, at
| least to me. I also recently invested in my own fuel transfer
| pump to transport home heating fuel instead of paying for
| delivery. 55 gallon drums: $20 each. Pump: $200. But the most
| expensive part was actually the 15 meters of arctic grade fuel
| hose at over $400.
| pixl97 wrote:
| For sure. I've recently done my back yard with weathering
| steel raised beds and larger wooden privacy blocking
| partitions. I'm doing all the cutting and welding myself, so
| needed a heavy duty 220v high amp extension cord. Built my
| own, but the insulated copper cable for that was a pretty
| penny. Cutting wheels, grinding disks, and welding supplies
| add up in cost quick. That and all the different fasteners
| you need. And pity the thought of using any decorative brass
| or copper....
| zahlman wrote:
| Is it really necessary to use steel for the ground mount? How
| much does this stuff weigh?
| 7952 wrote:
| I would guess that a lot of the structure is needed for
| wind load rather than the weight. And weight could increase
| with s ow cover.
| mckn1ght wrote:
| Yep, snow load is a concern, but they're mounted at a
| high angle due to our latitude. That does however
| increase wind load, and we're located in somewhat of a
| gulley that funnels wind. I saw a friend's professionally
| installed ground mount buckle under a failed piece of
| strut so figured I'd splurge for stronger stuff where
| possible, especially since I'm DIYing it and looking
| forward to the tax credit, reducing costs to match.
| zahlman wrote:
| Do rooftop installations avoid that problem, then?
| ianburrell wrote:
| Solar panel weighs like 50 lbs. Think of it as a sheet of
| plywood. Not only do have to support the weight but have to
| worry about the wind load.
|
| You can use wood, but then you have buy good amount of
| treated lumber and put it together. Galvanized steel also
| lasts longer than wood.
|
| My impression is that galvanized steel fences are cheaper
| than wood ones. Even using steel posts and wood panels.
| People make wooden fences cause prefer the look.
| yencabulator wrote:
| Plenty of RVs have rooftop solar panels that'll routinely
| travel at 65 mph into a 35 mph headwind with no trouble.
| They're mounted with just plenty of little L-brackets
| screwed into essentially a plywood roof. Usually an RV roof
| has lightweight metal struts underneath for load support,
| but that's not what the solar panels mount to, that's
| mostly to carry the weight of a person standing on the
| roof. Never heard anyone have wind shear issues, the only
| trouble the L-brackets cause is water intrusion when the
| caulk ages and fails.
| cloudbonsai wrote:
| > What goes into a mount that makes it so expensive? Its
| essentially just a piece of metal, right?
|
| I think this graph sheds some light on your question:
|
| https://www.nrel.gov/solar/market-research-analysis/solar-in...
|
| What happened in the last decade was that solar panels
| ("Module" in this graph) got very very cheap. They used to cost
| $3 per watt in 2010, but now only cost $0.3 per watt.
|
| This extreme price drop happened thanks to technical
| innovations (such as commoditization of PERC cells), and the
| large-scale production in PRC.
|
| Metal components ("Hardware - BOS" in this graph) did get
| cheaper in the same time frame ($0.6 per watt to $0.5 per
| watt), but their cost cannot be reduced as much exactly because
| they are just a piece of metal i.e. there is no low-hanging
| fruit in Metallurgy.
| JanisErdmanis wrote:
| Because of the variety of roof designs and associated mounting
| systems, it is generally known how to mount the panels you are
| paying for. Installing panels on a high-pitched roof is also
| not an easy feat.
|
| For ground mounting, site preparation is required. Probably one
| wouldn't want to see their panel system get some slope year
| after year.
| dukeyukey wrote:
| It's not the mount, it's the labour. People are expensive!
| sowbug wrote:
| You can buy cheap mounting equipment on AliExpress. But then
| you must convince your local building department that your
| panels won't land on your neighbors in the next storm. That
| conversation is easier when you're using familiar name-brand
| mounting equipment that has published and proven all its specs.
|
| Similarly, if you want to do a permitted installation, you
| generally need to use UL-certified inverters and batteries --
| fewer shocks and fires. That's a different pricing tier from
| the "trust me bro" equipment you can find online.
|
| Meanwhile, a panel's main failure mode is not producing enough
| power. They're relatively easy to replace when they fail to do
| that. Price incentives are better aligned for that system
| component.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| > What goes into a mount that makes it so expensive?
|
| Ground mounts are far more expensive, not only because of how
| strong they need to be to support the panels under strong winds
| and snow without deflection, but the anchoring can be
| complicated depending on the site.
|
| Some people can just hammer spikes into the ground, fill with
| epoxy, and their array is anchored. For my yard, I have to dig
| 4-feet down below frost line, through incredibly rocky clay
| soil, and bury (and concrete) 4x4 posts. On top of those posts
| goes the (expensive) metal rails to mount the panels. For just
| 10 solar panels it's gonna cost me ~$1000 in materials and many
| hours of digging.
|
| The metal U-channel rails I'm looking at using will cost around
| $40/pp (10-ft), and I need at least 10 of them. In theory a
| cheaper option could be wooden boards like 2x8/2x10, but
| they're significantly heavier, bulkier, and would still be
| difficult to mount to.
|
| This construction lets me build the array however I want,
| including adjusting angle (I'll have 4 pre-set angles for each
| season). This design is still cheaper than the cheapest pre-fab
| ground mounts, which are metal legs which go for ~$110/pp. You
| need ~2 legs per panel, though in some cases you can share one
| leg for two panels. For 10 panels you still need at least 11
| legs, so at least $1100, _before_ cost to anchor them. And that
| 's a fixed angle. The adjustable angle ones are more like
| $185/pp.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Was a power auger an option or utilized?
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| No, power augers (even hydraulic ones) don't work well in
| incredibly rocky clay soil. My landlord tried to use one a
| couple years ago, got about a foot deep, and gave up and
| grabbed a shovel and digging bar.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| In my experience, if you're willing to sacrifice the bit,
| they can save time in the earth composition you mention
| vs manual excavation if the driver has enough power
| (especially if mounted to a skid steer, just drive the
| bit towards success depth). Thanks for the reply, always
| curious on improving the speed and efficiency of ground
| mount installs.
| Arrath wrote:
| I have the privilege of being licensed and insured for
| such and have a working relationship with the county fire
| marshall who issues the permits, so I used a rock bar to
| open a little hole to the right depth and then sprung the
| hole with a small binary explosive charge. Covered with
| matting hung from a borrowed tractor's bucket, so no
| danger of launched projectiles.
|
| Saved a whole lot of backbreaking digging, do recommend.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| > This fact always surprises me. What goes into a mount that
| makes it so expensive? It's essentially just a piece of metal,
| right?
|
| The labor alone to mount the PV panel costs more than the PV
| panel. A union electrician costs a contractor $100/hr in a
| medium sized metro area with fringes and wages.
|
| The mount and installing the mount cost more than the PV panel
| as well.
|
| I'm unsure why everyone is posting about rooftop solar and
| rooftop mounts, the vast majority of PV panels are installed in
| solar fields, not on roofs.
|
| I actually run and sell commercial electrical work, for what
| it's worth.
| htrp wrote:
| i saw a post some where that they are just laying panels on the
| ground in africa bc of this problem
| npodbielski wrote:
| Can someone explain to me what is the point of this? The whole
| point of mounting solar panels should be to maximize area that is
| facing the sun. Look at the 3rd picture, some are facing the
| camera, some are slightly tilted to the right. This way you
| effectively loosing some of the money you spend for the panels
| because they are not placed optimally.
|
| If you would live on the equator optimal placing is laying panels
| on the ground. The closer you are to the pole you should lift
| panel up more on the north side.
|
| Standing panels would make sense from theoretical point of view
| on the pole, but then you have freezing temperatures and snow
| covering the panels which makes them useless.
|
| Which again brings me to the question: why? Why would anybody do
| that?
| cenamus wrote:
| Vertical panels have higher efficiency due to lower panel
| temperatures.
|
| And usually you have enough power during midday but not in the
| mornings and evenings, where these would produce the most
| power, sort of flattening the power curve.
|
| Also panels are really cheap, like 70EUR per piece
| jwr wrote:
| Yes, there are good reasons for mounting panels vertically
| (other than just needing fence instead of a roof, obviously). A
| 5-minute session with a search engine or an LLM will explain
| those.
| Timshel wrote:
| > but then you have freezing temperatures and snow covering the
| panels which makes them useless.
|
| When vertical not much of an issue and the reflection from the
| snow appears to work well with bifacial.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > The whole point of mounting solar panels should be to
| maximize area that is facing the sun.
|
| This is still conventional wisdom, yes. It assumes that you
| need to maximise utilisation of solar panels, and act as if
| they are rare and expensive. But they are now neither rare nor
| expensive any more.
|
| Also, as the other comment pointed out, if you "maximize area
| that is facing the sun", you get most generation at mid-day.
| Adding in some generation that is most active in early and late
| day balances that out, as most power is used then.
|
| And you can just throw more panels at the problem. It's not a
| constraint any more.
| rcxdude wrote:
| As other have said, panels are very cheap now (I think I some
| calculations that the panels can be cheaper than wooden boards
| for a more traditional fence), so the game is not mounting them
| optimally but instead just finding places to put them with
| minimum effort to increase the total area you have (that still
| get _some_ light).
| energy123 wrote:
| Duck curve is the main reason, aside from "dual use utility as
| a literal fence" or "I ran out of space on my roof". Any solar
| you can collect at sunrise or sunset is more valuable.
| alias_neo wrote:
| There are a few reasons as I understand it; aside from winter
| sun being a bonus, when the sun is low in the sky, as well as
| mornings,evenings, there's also the fact that solar panels are
| dirt cheap now and efficiency is getting higher.
|
| OP has 370W bi-facial panels that cost $100, I recently had
| solar installed the in UK with 465W single-face panels which
| would have cost ~PS100 each to buy in small quantities, my
| installer clearly paid less (and charged 3x).
|
| It has also been my experience that a few degrees off with
| decent enough sun (and we don't get amazing sun here in the UK)
| makes practically no difference to the generation; my arrays
| are facing E-SE and S-SW and I can slightly exceed the rated
| specs in the peak of summer when the sun is mid-way between
| both arrays and not pointing "directly" at either.
| masklinn wrote:
| > The whole point of mounting solar panels should be to
| maximize area that is facing the sun.
|
| There are a lot more considerations to get into e.g. in areas
| with lots of snow verticals are significantly less affected and
| benefit more from reflection, in summer vertical E/W bifacials
| have a "double hump" which provides more generation in the
| morning and evening, verticals take less floor space so you
| might be able to get extra panels or get panels at all, N/S
| bifacials have better winter production unless your slanted
| panels are "detuned" from perfect summer angle (or even better
| have a tilt mount you can update every few months, but that is
| not cheap).
| jagermo wrote:
| < Which again brings me to the question: why? Why would anybody
| do that?
|
| Because why not have a fence that at least generates some power
| instead of a fence that does nothing! Costs are not that much
| more, 2k is easily spent on a bigger fence and this way, you
| don't have to get up and hustle, our fence does it for you!
| cameldrv wrote:
| If you live at high latitude (Canada, N. Europe, etc), in the
| winter, the sun only gets 15-20 degrees above the horizon in
| the middle of the winter, and a vertical panel accumulates snow
| much less than even a mild slope.
|
| Part of the issue is what you're optimizing for. If you have
| yearly net-metering, and you just want to max out the number of
| kWh you generate over the year, vertical probably isn't that
| great. If you are off-grid or are paid hourly based on power
| prices or some other scheme, you generally want to maximize
| your worst-case power production rather than maximize yearly
| production. Generally batteries are only sized for a few days
| worth of storage or so. You can't store power from the summer
| and use it in the winter. Vertical panels at high latitudes
| also produce more power earlier and later in the day when the
| sun is really low. Bifacial vertical panels also generally get
| more bifacial gain, especially on cloudy days.
|
| It's really a question of maximizing worst-case performance vs.
| average-case performance.
| voidUpdate wrote:
| Is this an actual boundary fence or just some free-standing
| vertical solar panels? Is there any reason they should be
| vertical instead of facing the sun? Where I live, it would be
| more efficient for them to be at a roughly 40 degree angle (I
| think)
| jpt1 wrote:
| You get a different generation curve (more energy in mornings
| and evenings) with vertical bi-facial panels. Though this
| person is in a woody area which might not see that benefit.
| masklinn wrote:
| That's specifically for e/w bifacials, you don't get that
| with N/S panels.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| North/south bifacial shifts the generation seasonally,
| trading much less in summer for a bit more in winter when
| the sun is low.
| masklinn wrote:
| Indeed.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Is there any reason they should be vertical instead of facing
| the sun?
|
| Takes up a smaller footprint of land, and PV panels themselves
| are now so cheap and last so long that it borderline makes
| sense as a fencing material _even if you don 't connect them to
| an inverter and power and anything with them_.
| bradfa wrote:
| Snow doesn't accumulate on vertical panels. If it snows where
| you live this can make a big difference in winter performance
| and/or winter maintenance of clearing snow.
| woodpanel wrote:
| I'm planning to do the same (without creating too much of an
| eyesore for me and my neighbors). So great to see him documenting
| this.
|
| One thing his construction will run into though is his wooden
| pillars rotting quickly. Always keep a healthy distance between
| wood or it will be soaked quickly.
| kragen wrote:
| He says they're "treated", which I think means "impregnated
| with alkaline copper quaternary or similar poisons". So I think
| it might survive a good while even if it stays wet after it
| rains.
| prawn wrote:
| I'd say this is why they have the treated posts resting on
| gravel with concrete filling the remainder. This would stop
| water pooling, and if the concrete was mounded a little bit,
| keep more water away from the posts.
| Havoc wrote:
| Love the concept but not sure about a fence with giant gaps
| underneath it
| jagermo wrote:
| I think that is one of the facts that I like about solar. It
| plays towards tinkers and builders unlike any other power source,
| can be surprisingly flexible and seems to scale pretty well.
| Also, besides knowledge about electricity, you don't really need
| and special knowledge or take additional precautions (besides the
| usual, safety third and all).
| ge96 wrote:
| May have to deal with paid permits depending on where you are
|
| Watched Fisherman's Life on YT (in California) recently build
| out some panels had to pay for inspection granted different
| design than a fence
| ghtbircshotbe wrote:
| Some questions:
|
| 1. The article doesn't say how much power he actually generates
| from the panels.
|
| 2. It would be nice if more were said about the need for bracing.
| How high can the fence be without requiring bracing?
|
| 3. If you want to enclose a space, the which direction do the
| panels face? Outwards? As close to south as possible? You may end
| up with a bunch of electrical stuff facing away from your house.
| I think it's just a matter of time before your local overbearing
| town/hoa decides this is too ugly.
| masklinn wrote:
| For (3) you should get bifacials with the A side facing south
| if your fence is N/S, if E/W the recommendation is to alternate
| 50/50.
| duckmysick wrote:
| Based on the photos it's a fence in a fairly private location. I
| assume it's not viable if the solar fence is right next to a
| street or a sidewalk, because of potential vandalism and
| obstructions from trees or street lights.
| owenthejumper wrote:
| I've been wanting to do THIS for a long time. How was permitting
| process? That scares me the most
| turtlebits wrote:
| I'm sorry, but that's not a fence, it's just a vertically mounted
| array. Would OP really have built a regular fence there?
|
| It'd probably be less labor and material intensive to just build
| a single structure holding the entire array using much longer
| rails instead of setting posts and rails every 6-7 feet. To keep
| costs lower you could also go with a string inverter instead of
| the ~$1500 you'd need for microinverters.
|
| Pricing conveniently doesn't include the panels, so you just have
| a set of posts and some horizontal racking.
| whiw wrote:
| I'd be concerned about clay heave (where clay shrinks/expands
| depending on moisture content, which likely varies over the
| year). If the posts at each end of a panel move out of plane
| there will be a twisting moment on the panel, and glass doesn't
| like being bent.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-24 23:01 UTC)