Very few solar panels on new houses (2025 Update)

If everyone in a new neighborhood has them, it is probably an HOA rule or some kind of feel good ordinance with a tax credit and that is the minimum number.

FIT ended (for new installs) 31st March 2019.

One factor could be that the output per panel has gone up over time. They were ~200W a decade ago, new ones are ~300W. But still

I think in the above you're assuming that you get paid a decent rate on the excess, which may not be true. You may only get wholesale rate, which makes it economically unviable.

And do what with the owners? One owner produces the power, is subject to the costs and benefits, the other is just another power system customer. They do have large solar arrays that are on businesses or just on acres of land, generating power for the grid.

Could be where you live as to the rate. I know a fellow that put in a couple of big arays on his property. He gets paid the same for the out going power as for the in comming power.

He usually sells enough to not have hardly any power bill each month.

He isnt even in the USA.

Not necessarily. In parts of the US electric companies were only paying the wholesale rate, what they can buy electric for from the cheap sources on the grid. So, you might be getting 5 cents, while you pay 15 cents for what you use off the grid. It varies state by state. Here in NJ, the govt is forcing electric companies to use renewable, with increasing percentage numbers each year. To meet that, they can count the electric that you generate from your home panels, without regard to whether you use it yourself of pump it into the grid. It's the total amount you generate that counts. People who have solar get a certificate for the year that shows they generated X kwh. Then there are periodic auctions, where the power companies bid to buy those certificates. Whatever amount they buy, those Kwh count toward their renewable energy mandate. Some home owners were getting a few thousand a year, 15+ years ago, making it a good deal for them. The point is, it can get complicated.

That's how it works now. But you suggested putting 2x on one roof, nothing on the neighbors roof. IDK how that works.

Yes, that's what makes it complicated, you have to factor all that in.

If you really want an answer, why don't you just stop at one of those new homes, ask the owner? Tell them you're thinking of solar, wondering why they have so few panels, is it some new tech, etc?

Well, I know zero about how solar works over there.

It's not irrelevant. If they pay you $1 kwh for what you put in the grid, then covering the roof with panels makes sense. If they pay you 2 cents, then you'll never recover the cost of the extra panels to put more into the grid.

See the above.

That may be true. If you earn an 8% return in the market, that's $2000 a year, which would cover a ~$160 a month electric bill. And at the end of 20 years, you still have your $25K, not a busted ass old solar system.

I get calls almost every day to sell me solar systems. Most of the time they think they are calling the guy that used to have my phone number. One outfit kept calling so I made appointments since they also have a different address. I have no idea if they showed up

Typical home ones are probably ~5KW, which is nothing to sneeze at. They will produce as much energy as the home uses, probably more, depending on where they are located. The only issue is the cost compared to buying electric and how long they last.

Maybe not. As was pointed out, in the US there are companies that will sign a contract with the homeowner, where they put the system in for free and you agree to a long term contract to buy the electric. The builder could have done that, the contract is then a lien on the property and goes with it.

Why don't you go ask the people that have them? Fretwell came up with I think the best theory. There may be some local requirement or incentive to the builder to put some in and that may be the min number needed and/or there may be not much more advantage to the builder to put in more.

No, they're *rated* at 5kW. In the UK limited to 4kW or you get no subsidy (some bullshit about overloading the grid). 5 (or 4) kW is the maximum they'll make, the absolute maximum if:

I had some panels in Scotland. Four, rated at 250W each, so 1kW. Typically I'd get about 150W in total!

Indeed. I have twelve 320-watt panels; over a 12-month period, they generate close to 2x my annual usage, the excess for which I'm currently paid a pittance (that will change within the year to being paid wholesale market rate per kwH for the excess).

The initial investment returned 30% the first year, and returns about 12% per annum for the 25 year life of the panels (and that percentage will grow as the power company raises rates) which returns the original investment in about 7 years. Can't get a better low-risk investment in the stock market, that's for sure.

When they tried to give (sell) panels for my house, I asked 'why would I do that'?

I have Spanish style barrel tile and sure do not want panels mounted on it or have clowns walking on it that do not know how to walk on it.

My power bill last month was $75.00. My HVAC system is 14 SEER, variable speed pool pump, less energy usage lights and so on. This is in the desert. All cost less than solar panels.

Zero is about it. You get f*ck all from them. We don't have sun.

Unless you're a very unusual person and consume power very evenly, almost all you generate goes into the grid. Most people use power in bursts to run a dryer, a cooker, etc. Or they use power when it's dark for lighting. Almost never can it come directly from the panels. If you're going to avoid using the grid, you need a huge battery, which costs even more. Best just to buy your power from companies who make it on mass. Small scale generation is pointless.

I think it more likely that the OP can't count (the number of panels), or saw two arrays and conflated them with panels.

As for new construction, depending upon locale, there may be state requirements on new construction:

Solar panels will be a required feature on new houses in California, after the state's Building Standards Commission gave final approval to a housing rule that's the first of its kind in the United States.

Starting in 2020, California homebuyers will have the option of either paying for solar panels outright, leasing them, or entering a power purchase agreement with developers. Another option is for communities to "pool resources instead of installing solar on individual homes," Bohan said.

Set to take effect in 2020, the new standard includes an exemption for houses that are often shaded from the sun. It also includes incentives for people to add a high-capacity battery to their home's electrical system, to store the sun's energy.

I know that's the rating, but in a decent location, they will produce as much energy as the home uses. If they had full sun, perfect orientation, they would produce even more.

In the UK limited to 4kW or you get no subsidy (some bullshit about overloading the grid). 5 (or 4) kW is the maximum they'll make, the absolute maximum if:

IDK what your weather is there, but here in NJ they work. Here are some estimates:

It's very easy to count panels.

This doesn't explain why anyone would build a house with a small number instead of the whole roof. Either make it a solar house or not. Lots of tiny arrays is not as cheap and efficient as a few big ones.