In the UK as a consumer you can (always AFAIK) get a smart meter for free, and your retail supplier is required to offer you a non-zero rate (the "Smart Export Guarantee") for what you export back to the grid. That can be as high as about half the rate to import.
For a retractable you probably wouldn't be doing that more than once a day, and probably not for more than half a year, and less if if winds don't get too high. I can imagine 10Y life might be reasonable. But these don't seem to be retractable.
"The systems use monocrystalline solar cells backed by a 10-year product warranty."
My home is in London UK and is relatively small and efficient, but 8kWh may be higher than our peak demand ever over more than 20 years in this house...
Obvs "MaaS" capitalisation for the full stock valuation.
Obvs(2) a variant of this service has traditionally been provided for free by drunken teens. They might prove to be better and more thoughtful custodians of investment funds.
You are constructing a universe that simply does not exist or apply to me at least. I and my code are just not that important or special in the grand scheme of things.
You seem to be asserting some simple zero-sum exclusionary game here that does not exist. I am entirely content if Amazon or Google extracts some value - that in no way inhibits anyone else doing so in reality. But to me the far more important case - a messy long tail - is smaller organisations such as the small telco that used a few lines of my code to help avoid early smart-ish picture phones on their network blowing each other up with malformed JPEGs. Said telco could not have released the exchange's software suite under GPL if I'd had that 8 lines of my Java under GPL rather than Apache.
Availability to use, without adding other complications, is a key aim. I'm trying to maximise to other people whatever value there is in the work that I've done.
I just gave an example: not all potential users of code can either use GPL-ish code or are profit-driven megacorps such as Google; false dichotomies are false. There are many small or intermediate organisations (and individuals) who would like to use open source code with the fewest legal and admin complications possible. I supported a similar cohort with an early multimedia site with simple free licensing.
It's my (open source) code and I want to make it widely available, ie as open as reasonably possible, including cases such as my past small start-ups with no budget and not able to release everything open source. Why do I have to justify or explain that "why"?
I very much want my (open sourced) code to be used by anyone who wants to use it, in any context, including commercial, and with Apache I also want the patent protection effects.
Using such an inflammatory term to refer to someone's non-preferred style of licence is unhelpful to reasonable debate.
This is simply rude and wrong in its claims that (all) people (such as me) using BSD and Apache licences are doing so out of ignorance, rather than because we know and want the effects that they have.
This childish inflammatory bile rather hurts the standing of GPL and friends, which do have appropriate applications too.
Key parameters: no storage/battery, maximum microinverter output 800W/3.5A, maximum panel kWp 2000W, maximum PV Voc 120V, use of ordinary BS 1363 plug.
https://www.earth.org.uk/ https://mastodon.energy/@EarthOrgUK
meet.hn/city/51.3817763,-0.2769933/Royal-Borough-of-Kingston-upon-Thames
Socials: - github.com/DamonHD
---