[showerst]

Pretty cool, although the heatmaps have a little of the "this is just a population density map" effect. https://xkcd.com/1138/

It would be cool to modify them to be per-capita, although I imagine adjusting arbitrary hexes for population density would be a real challenge.

[TheGRS]

I think the lack of concentration in some areas, particularly hubs in Texas and Florida, is actually pretty eye-opening. To me these areas should be very dense with panels from the cost/benefit alone.

[pixl97]

So there are a couple of issues here. First, there are a lot of panels in the Austin/San Antonio area, and if you live around here you see a lot of them.

Once you get outside of the larger cities panels, on houses in particular have nothing to do with costs, but instead a more deeply ingrained bias against them because the population is heavily propagandized to.

I have friends that have things like solar deer feeders and cameras and all kinds of other stand alone solar devices that won't put solar on their house "because panels are too polluting"

[TheGRS]

Exactly, the data backs up the cultural bias happening in these regions. Its not a matter of population density or cost/benefit, but a matter of virtue signaling (or lack of virtue signaling?). I think if people were making rational cost decisions installing these would be a no brainer, but they fear being ostracized from their groups.

[noduerme]

Something's wrong with xkcd's data if Portland doesn't rate a red dot on the furry porn map.