Thor Forums

[TurnerFam]

...

your replies reinforce the idea that 'solar' is not the realistic power source that many dream of it to be... something like a silent 'knight in shining armor'. It seems to me to be more of a 'need' because 'others are doing it, so I guess I should, too' perspective.

Now, not that solar in itself is anything negative, it's simply another power source, but really also an expensive one. Sure, you can purchase a $100 'solar system' to deploy out near your rig once you've arrived at your picturesque, though unrealistic, off-grid vacation site, as seen on many 'advertisements' about 'going camping', but that equates to having a 120v outlet that only allows up to 1 1/2 amps of usage, with full sun, and only has power 'when' the sun is out, and almost directly overhead... for a few short hours, if that.

There are certainly some adventurers, with deep pockets, that have deployed fully-built-out solar 'systems' that are capable of much, much more - yes, but that's like equating building your own electrical substation at your home - some will do it, but most never will - it's not realistic for most 'campers'. Does the solar industry want this thought to permeate all campers, no matter what their 'real' situation is? Yes. It's across the board: 'You Need Solar', and your new camper is already 'solar ready'!

Having solar is good. Not having solar is good. Neither is right, or wrong, but it seems that the conversations tend to be one-sided, always showing the 'great solutions' that solar brings to the camping community, yet never really go into discussions about the reality of the downfalls of solar, or the relatively expensive cost, versus the 'pay back' timeframe, or much discussion that it does not power anything 'directly', but is more of a battery charger, for the most part.

For most campers, if they have any 'concerns' over being able to have a night without 'shore power', having an additional battery is probably a much easier, quicker, and much more cost-effective measure. Having 'solar' for those few and relatively infrequent, if ever, 'needs' is highly over-rated, and very expensive for the little overall usage.

This is not really a discussion about disagreeing over the validity of solar in certain situations, but more of a balancing of the conversation, giving more of a 'reality check' for most RV owners.

When it comes to solar, being 'mobile', like with RVs, creates actually the hardest cost to financially figure - there are just too many variables. With homes, though, where many of these 'solar cost comparisons' arise, that is a whole different story - a fixed position solar panel, with never any shade, and not moving around, is certainly a much easier cost and financial payback to compute, even though it, itself, is not exact, and can vary depending on 'guesstimates' made at the time of purchase.


it's all good : )