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).
> 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?
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.
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....
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 ;)
> 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.
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]
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
>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.
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.
In The Netherlands it's €0.90-1.30/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.
> 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.
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...
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.
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.
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 €2k 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 €200 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 €3,500 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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 500€, having to do it separately (plus the additional spikes) cost 2500€
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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 £6000 installed without a battery, and over £10,000 with a battery (circa 10kWh).
A 10kWp installation with a battery will easily cost you £15,000-£20,000, with an annual energy bill of ~£2000 it's easy to hit 7-10 years ROI.
To put some numbers to my specific case, my 7kWp system with 12kWh battery was ~£13,000 in summer 2025, and about 55-60% of the cost came from scaffolding and labour.
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).
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.
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
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.
That's still 150% higher than the wholesale price overseas, and maybe if paying someone to install an appliance costs 9× more than the appliance does, you should think about doing it yourself.
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.
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.
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.
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".
> 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?).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 ~£100 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.
> 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).
< 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!
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).
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Watched Fisherman's Life on YT (in California) recently build out some panels had to pay for inspection granted different design than a fence
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?
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.
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.
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.
Saved a whole lot of backbreaking digging, do recommend.
A lot of construction work in general is priced around labor being atleast 50% of the total cost.
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.
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 ;)
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...
[1] https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=CRN1913010...
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.
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_traffic-r...
https://www.dataforindia.com/road-accident-deaths/
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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...
It is the cost of scaffolding to get up to the roof, labour to install the panels, electrical certification, etc.
I have several solar arrays at home - roof mounted, ground mounted.
The first array I ended up shelling out something like €2k 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 €200 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 €3,500 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.
And so on :)
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.
For ground mounting, site preparation is required. Probably one wouldn't want to see their panel system get some slope year after year.
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.
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?
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.
I’m in a very windy location but they are heavy enough to not budge.
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.
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.
Human Labor, the most neglected factor when discussing rising infrastructure costs.
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.
Talk to your AHJ before spending any money.
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.
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.
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.
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 500€, having to do it separately (plus the additional spikes) cost 2500€
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.
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.
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
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.
$1100 for mounting $1000 worth of panels does not seem terrible for something that anyone proficient with a hammer could accomplish.
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.
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.
Ditching the rails and bolting to the panel mounting holes with galvanized angle is a lot cheaper.
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.
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.
A 10kWp installation with a battery will easily cost you £15,000-£20,000, with an annual energy bill of ~£2000 it's easy to hit 7-10 years ROI.
To put some numbers to my specific case, my 7kWp system with 12kWh battery was ~£13,000 in summer 2025, and about 55-60% of the cost came from scaffolding and labour.
Unfortunately, I think Americans are much too heavily invested in current infrastructure to consider going all-in on those…
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
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.)
If you're paying someone else to do it, the panels will likely be <10% of the cost.
Though all three are pretty safe as long as you buy the appropriate equipment, and take reasonable precautions when installing it.
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".
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?).
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.
https://bsky.app/profile/solarchase.bsky.social/post/3m3md7k...
For grid stability purposes it does not.
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.
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?
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.
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 70€ per piece
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 ~£100 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.
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).
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!
When vertical not much of an issue and the reflection from the snow appears to work well with bifacial.
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.
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.