Free Solar Champions Kit (Corflute Signs, Stickers) Delivered @ Solar Citizens

70
Free Solar Champions Kit (Corflute Signs, Stickers) Delivered @ Solar Citizens
Go to Deal
Tommyaka on 20/03/2025 - 11:12 solarcitizens.org.au (353 clicks)
Last edited 20/03/2025 - 13:40 by 1 other user

Solar Citizens are giving out free corflutes, stickers and signs to those wanting to advocate for renewable solar energy generation/storage and against nuclear energy generation.

Promotion:

Sign up to be sent our free Solar Champion kit: including punchy yard signs that read “Save Our Solar from Nuclear”, or two sunny options: "Queensland is the Solar State - Nuclear No Thanks" or “Solar Savings for All” signs, plus a range of different sized stickers you can use to be loud and proud about your home solar. We will send the Solar Champion kits directly to you for free.

Order a free Solar Champions Kit

If you are a solar champion, you can order a FREE set of materials from us, which are available while stocks last. Take your pick from corflutes for your yard or stickers for your letter box or bumper.

Other Corflute Signs Sticker

Related Stores

Solar Citizens
Solar Citizens

Comments

  • 31mop on 20/03/2025 - 11:19
    +3

    What a time to be alive.

  • Hinee on 20/03/2025 - 11:20
    +6

    Pull up a chair, crack a beer and grab a packet of chips. This should get interesting.

  • Ham Dragon on 20/03/2025 - 11:30
    +7

    To quote the famous Mexican saying, "why not both?".

    Love having PV panels on my roof giving me free power and I like the idea of a low carbon, always on & virtually unlimited power source in the form of nuclear.

    • wisc on 20/03/2025 - 11:46
      -5

      100%

      Renewables just aren't reliable enough at this point, and expensive, you only need to look at energy prices right now….

    • Shiroi Okami on 20/03/2025 - 11:46
      +1

      Especially when we're going to need absolute (profanity) loads of power in the future—computers are only going to demand more and more energy, and we're going to rely on them even more. I don’t know why anyone is scared of nuclear at all. The only meltdowns that have happened were mostly due to design oversights mixed with human error, plus one caused by a delayed shutdown during an earthquake/tsunami. They could build thousands of reactors in Australia, where they won't see any natural disasters for hundreds of millions of years.

      • SBOB on 20/03/2025 - 12:12
        +2

        Especially when we're going to need absolute (profanity) loads of power in the future

        Not if you believe lnps predictions for justifying their costing models :)

      • peterc on 20/03/2025 - 18:48
        +1

        So the new reactors are not going to have any:
        Design oversights?
        Human error?
        Natural disasters?
        What would happen if a airplane flies into one of these by accident and with malice?
        A truck bomb?
        Where the hell are we going to get the water to keep them cool?
        etc……………..

        The end of coal and the fake nuclear energy ‘red herring’
        https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/life/science/environment/2025…?

        • Shiroi Okami on 20/03/2025 - 19:13

          I am by no means saying we should ditch solar and rely only on nuclear. What I am saying is that we will have to adopt nuclear energy, whether through fission or fusion, because we will need that level of power in the future. Simply adding more and more solar panels is not a viable solution.

          Regarding design oversight, the Chernobyl reactor, the RBMK-1000, began construction in 1970 and was designed before we even landed on the moon. The disaster was not caused by human error alone; the reactor itself had serious design flaws. That specific design, as far as I know, is no longer used outside of Russia.

          Most areas in Australia do not experience natural disasters, so nuclear plants could be built in safe locations.

          To address security concerns, the plant should be built in an area outside flight paths and designated as a no-fly zone. If a plane were hijacked and began heading toward it, authorities should be prepared to shoot it down. The same principle applies to a potential truck attack, with strict perimeter security in place.

          Current nuclear reactors use less water than coal plants, and water is one of the most abundant resources available. Additionally, there are air-cooled reactor designs that require almost no water at all.

          • peterc on 21/03/2025 - 14:08
            +1

            @Shiroi Okami: I am all for fusion NOT fission!

            You are being misinformed about solar panels space requirements, if we only used farmland for solar generation and divided all Australian farmland by 3500 parcels, all solar generation required to meet demand would be 1 or the 3500 parcels.

            Open google earth and see how much land, solar farms or wind farms take up?
            See if you can even find one without searching?

            Renewables already fill 30-40% Australian needs, so we would have to triple what we have to more then meet our power generation until a much SAFER alternative like fusion, geo power, etc…

            Nuclear is by far the most expensive and dangerous power to produce already, but lets have the army on 24h standby to protect it from lunatics, that would not add to the price at all!

            We have already poison our environment (not the planet, the planet doesn't care about us) for over 100 years by burning literally massive mountains worth of coal, gas and oil every year, now we plan to add more nuclear waste to the mountains.

            • Shiroi Okami on 21/03/2025 - 15:27
              -1

              @peterc: To power Australia with only solar panels, you would need around 571 million panels.
              At around $200 per panel, that’s $114 billion for the panels alone, not including the frames to hold them up, the cables to connect them, or the inverters and other infrastructure required to use them. Additionally, you would need batteries or other storage solutions, and a massive team to maintain such a large number of solar panels.

              Math Breakdown:
              Total daily power needed: 0.685 TWh = 685,000,000 kWh
              Each panel generates: 1.2 kWh per day
              Panels required:
              685,000,000 kWh ÷ 1.2 kWh per panel = 571,000,000 panels

              Now, if we wanted to use nuclear power instead, we would need around 29 1GW plants. This comes out to around $304 billion, which covers fully installed and operational plants. The expected lifespan of a nuclear plant is up to 80 years, with ongoing maintenance and upgrades. That’s about 4 times longer than solar panels, and the expected lifespan of grid-scale battery storage is also around 10-20 years, so we could be looking at replacing the batteries 4-8 times (this is not added to the cost of the solar panels mentioned earlier).

              The only recent attacks on nuclear plants have occurred at Ukraine's ZNPP reactor due to the war with Russia. Before that, the last attacks were in 2007 in Iran and 2006 in Syria, both in the Middle East during conflicts. So, in theory, there is almost no risk of attacks on any plants in Australia.

              Radiation is nothing new to our world; radioactive materials already exist naturally in the earth. We mine them, use them, and put them back. It will take millions of years for the material to make its way to the surface, if it even can in that area. And if you really wanted to ensure it would never be an issue, we could just rocket it into the sun. That would require around 20 rockets per year.

              Additionally, we have the largest uranium reserves in the world. The next highest reserves are less than half of what we have. Our uranium alone could power the world for at least 1,700 years with our current technology.

              • Shiroi Okami on 21/03/2025 - 15:44

                @Shiroi Okami: To add to this we make around 500k solar panels a year so we will just be giving about $150billion to another country.

              • peterc on 21/03/2025 - 17:30

                @Shiroi Okami: Wow, incredible how one sided you information is!!!!!!!!!!

                I will not waste my time responding to that but for anyone else that reads this:

                For the price of a new kitchen reno or a decent European holiday a person can install solar panels a large battery and with an EV be totally independent from the grid with no fuel bills, no gas bills and no electricity bills.
                If you use an electricity wholesaler like Amber you can make a decent income from selling you energy at peak periods.

                With nuclear you would continue to be a slave to the energy companies!

                • Shiroi Okami on 21/03/2025 - 17:31
                  -1

                  @peterc: Fun fact you have to pay to feed in to the grid in nsw

    • mathew42 on 20/03/2025 - 12:13
      +4

      Challenge 1: Doesn't match needs of the grid

      In Australia, particularly during summer we often generate excess electricity from solar and wind, so the grid requires dispatchable suppliers. Examples of dispatchable sources are hydro, batteries and gas. Coal & nuclear are designed to run 24/7 and cannot rapidly ramp generation up and down. The impact of this is that 24/7 generators (e.g. nuclear) pay money during the day to export energy and dispatchable generators only turn on when prices are high.

      Challenge 2: Cost & time frames

      I doubt anyone expects the government to deliver on budget and time.
      After decades, we still cannot decide on a location for low level nuclear waste, so it is stored in hospital basements, universities and hundreds of other locations!

      Small modular reactor are a possible bright spot, but currently there isn't a timeline for when these will be available to purchase.

      The reality is that the chances of nuclear power stations coming online before the coal power stations shut is close to zero.

      • Ham Dragon on 20/03/2025 - 12:29
        -2

        The peak demand events tend to be fairly predictable thanks to weather forecasts, meaning frequency control isn't super hard to manage, especially if know roughly when everyone will be switching on aircons. They do this in the UK in the lead up to half time when England are playing football, as everyone turns their kettles on.

        • mathew42 on 20/03/2025 - 13:00
          +2

          Coal & nuclear don't assist with peak demand, because they run 24/7 meaning you cannot switch them off in the middle of the day.

          Currently gas, hydro and batteries are used to manage peak demand because they can start generating in a few minutes down to milliseconds.

          • Ham Dragon on 20/03/2025 - 13:03

            @mathew42: Won't need to if the expensive renewables are utilised as redundancy or scaled back. The whole point of having reliable baseload power is not needing to rely on a mongrel mix of various inputs that work under varying conditions.

            • NinjaChicken on 20/03/2025 - 13:11
              +1

              @Ham Dragon: Can’t imagine that would be popular with the voters who have for years been incentivised to put solar on their roof, etc…

            • bobswinkle on 20/03/2025 - 13:52
              +1

              @Ham Dragon: Do you realise that the LNP policy still has the overwhelming majority of demand in Australia being met by renewable energy by 2050? Their nuclear proposal is to build <10% of our overall energy needs as nuclear, and build out the rest as renewables. Which means they will have the exact problem outlined above.

              And that's because once you start getting into meaningful amounts of nuclear in the grid even the ridiculously optimistic numbers they're using start looking insane. Like hundreds of billions of dollars insane.

              • Ham Dragon on 20/03/2025 - 14:49

                @bobswinkle: Wouldn't know & don't care as I do not vote for major parties. I'd prefer nuclear as the baseload source and have for years.

                • bobswinkle on 20/03/2025 - 14:55
                  +1

                  @Ham Dragon: But literally the only policy that is even remotely possible is government funded. The economics of private don't add up. Nobody is interested in building it. So you're preferring something that doesn't and can't exist in the Australian context.

                  • Ham Dragon on 20/03/2025 - 14:58

                    @bobswinkle: A man can dream…

                    That being said it's not just the LNP who support nuclear. I do realise it's not likely, however.

                    • bobswinkle on 20/03/2025 - 15:01
                      +1

                      @Ham Dragon: I'm sorry to be blunt, but your dream is for a different reality.

                      Private sector nuclear in Australia is non-viable. In fact, it's basically non-viable literally everywhere. If you can find me a single nuclear project worldwide that is wholly privately funded, I will be absolutely shocked to my core.

                      • Ham Dragon on 20/03/2025 - 15:05

                        @bobswinkle: Check out the Teesside SMR project…they're building 4 of them!

                        • sniagrab on 20/03/2025 - 15:40
                          +1

                          @Ham Dragon: Nice try - until they turn sod its vaporware

                        • bobswinkle on 20/03/2025 - 16:20
                          +1

                          @Ham Dragon: As sniagrab said, these don't exist. There's good reason to believe they will never exist. Announcables are easy. The projects that do exist are much more indicative. None of them are privately financed. All of them are wildly uneconomical and would never be privately financed.

      • EthicsGradient on 20/03/2025 - 13:05

        Coal & nuclear are designed to run 24/7 and cannot rapidly ramp generation up and down.

        This is flat out not true for modern nuclear plants. Ramp rates for the new french plants are nothing short of astonishing. To the point that they can be used for frequency regulation. They're not gas peaking systems, flywheels or batteries, but they are ungodly fast for the power output. - from wikipedia - up to 140 MW/minute, able to swing 5%/minute between 30% and 100% of capacity.

        Modern nuclear is very definitely dispatchable.

        Cost & time frames

        These are the killers for nuclear in Australia. We might be able to deliver it. At some point.

        But not when we actually need it (right now, right here)

    • EthicsGradient on 20/03/2025 - 12:58
      +6

      Elephant in the room is time to deliver. Peter Dutton can have cheerful wishes and fishes, but the reality of Australian projects of this type is they take bloody forever. Nuclear has a whole whack of hurdles to clear:

      • Getting public buy in (definitely not a slam dunk).
      • Rewriting our laws and regs (several years at a minimum).
      • Getting the engineering done (likely to have recycles while people whine about cost and cost blowouts. More years).
      • Actually building the first one. They take a long time. Ask the yanks.
      • Dealing with the project delays from the first one. These always happen. They tend to be worse on nuclear plants than other projects.
      • Turning the sucker on.
      • Turning it off until all of the start up screw ups are fixed.
      • Actually turning it on and using it.

      With the best will in the world, we would not get one of these up and running until 2035 to 2040. More likely 2040 to 2045. Another 4-10 years for each one after that.

      Not saying nuclear isn't going to part of the longer term solution for Australia. But it sure as hell isn't part of the short to medium term. And government spending on nuclear today is going to have direct impacts on cossie lives in taxes or levies until the bloody things come online - nuclear isn't going to reduce energy prices anytime soon - it's going to have the opposite effect in the short term!

      (This commentary comes from 20-30 years working on large scale engineering projects in Australia - I can see the case for nuclear in the long term, but the way it is being presented as a potential solution for today's problems is complete bullshit).

      Also, nuclear is not and never has been low carbon. It's extremely carbon intensive to mine and process the fuel, and insanely carbon intensive to manage disposal of spent fuel and plant decommissioning (so much cement. So, so much). Today it is carbon neutral at best - it's valuable for consistent base load and because a lot of the carbon cost is pushed out to end of life That's probably going to change with more electrification of mining, but it's a bloody huge emitter over lifetime. Even worse, we end up in the ridiculous situation of "in order to have a long lived low emissions nuclear plant somewhere around 2040, we have do a whole lot of carbon intensive mining and construction before we start it up!" (increased emissions just when we can't afford them …).

      • bobswinkle on 20/03/2025 - 13:49
        +2

        Well said mate. I hope people read and actually comprehend what you're saying. Quite simply the most accurate assessment of nuclear power, particularly in Australia, I've seen on here.

        The only thing I would add is that people are running numbers based on the idea that we can build as cost effectively as jurisdictions that:
        a) have been building nuclear for decades; and
        b) in some cases have indentured labour working on the projects.

        The idea that Australia, that infamously has one of the highest infrastructure build costs in the world, could come in at even double the price of these jurisdictions is completely laughable.

      • mathew42 on 20/03/2025 - 14:14
        +2

        I agree, except that I think the time to start building nuclear reactors was 30 years, so that we might possibly have them ready today as our coal power stations close down.

        The reality is by 2030 we need alternatives to coal and that is almost certainly will be storage of energy from renewables due to the economics of that renewable power cost being close to zero during the day.

      • Willyslicks on 20/03/2025 - 15:37
        +2

        Look I'd trust if anyone else than Dutton came up with a well thought out plan for nuclear, but what they're proposing is concepts of a plan.

        There's zero buy in from the sites they've proposed and they're scared to show the costs which are somehow going to be funded by public subsidies but the profits are privatized as we don't own the plants nationally.

        You might as well have shown a napkin with the words Energy Policy scrawled on it.

  • McFly on 20/03/2025 - 11:32

    Yeah, as per Ham Dragon - if they have material advocating for a sensible solar and nuclear mix I'll take two!

    • bobswinkle on 20/03/2025 - 13:55
      +5

      They are incompatible technologies at scale in Australia. The timelines, costs and incompatibility make it a distraction.

      Nobody who understands our grid and takes decarbonisation seriously considers nuclear a remotely viable energy source in the Australian context.

      It is a bait and switch. If the LNP gets in they will try to pass something to do with nuclear, and fail. Then they will say "Well not our fault, we tried" and pay hundreds of millions to keep the coal power plants open. I don't think they are doing this because they're corrupt or beholden to billionaires. I'm saying they will do that because, in their hearts, the modern LNP doesn't believe in climate change and doesn't want to do anything about it. But they can't say that, so they'll use nuclear as their excuse.

  • furiousgeorge on 20/03/2025 - 12:08
    -3

    Fear not. If labor and the greens get in we will all be living in caves anyway. Imagine the utopia?

    • StarPlatinum on 20/03/2025 - 12:27
      +2

      Do you firmly believe the LNP are able to safely and efficiently build nuclear. This is the same party that paid 30 million dollars for land worth 3 million. And are you forgetting the type of reactor peter dutton wants exist the small modular reactor only exist in china and russia. Do you think he will work with these two countries to get the reactors

      • Ham Dragon on 20/03/2025 - 12:32

        Cough cough. Avoca Drive. Cough cough.

        I don't think government should have anything to do with the construction of nuclear plants besides clearing the red & green tape to get it done.

        • StarPlatinum on 20/03/2025 - 12:32

          Peter Dutton will probably delay nuclear for as long as possible simply so gina can line his pockets

          • Ham Dragon on 20/03/2025 - 12:35

            @StarPlatinum: Before or after he legalises human sacrifice to Baal?

            Come on, can't we have an adult discussion without puerile sneering.

            • furiousgeorge on 20/03/2025 - 12:46

              @Ham Dragon: True that. I didn’t even mention nuclear.

            • McFly on 20/03/2025 - 12:58

              @Ham Dragon: He's also going to cancel Medicare (again.)

              • Ham Dragon on 20/03/2025 - 13:00

                @McFly: If you say so mate, I'm just trying to have a normal conversation about nuclear power. I don't vote for the majors so it doesn't mean anything to me.

        • EthicsGradient on 20/03/2025 - 13:21

          I don't think government should have anything to do with the construction of nuclear plants besides clearing the red & green tape to get it done.

          Two things: 1) I want my nuclear plants delivered wrapped up in red and green tape - any other way encourages failures we really don't want to see.

          2) I think your view about private/corporate capital being any more efficient at delivery than a government run project is unrealistic. Large projects are really difficult, and both groups kind of suck at them (my personal experience has been sitting on the inside of corporate projects while they (profanity) up - there is less public reporting, but the behaviours, actions and outcomes are similar).

        • bobswinkle on 20/03/2025 - 13:45

          Cool, except that's not the LNP policy. They are saying the government will build, own and run all the nuclear power plants.

          And they have to say that, because there's nobody private who will touch it with a ten foot pole. It's the worst form of energy for Australia's circumstances. Its cost is exorbitant and it's wildly incompatible with wind and solar.

          Their own extremely generous modelling says nuclear power will result in over 2 billion extra tonnes of emissions by 2050.

        • peterc on 20/03/2025 - 19:00

          No company will ever build a nuclear power plant and run it privately in Australia!

  • SBOB on 20/03/2025 - 12:11
    +2

    corflutes for your yard or stickers for your letter box or bumper.

    Future landfill while promoting cleaner renewable energy :/
    The pros outweigh the cons but pointless tatt is still pointless tatt

  • Noobist45 on 20/03/2025 - 12:53
    -1

    Australia has one of the highest uptakes of roof top solar in the world AND we also have some of the most expensive electricity in the world.
    9% price increase coming soon, estimated 30% increase mid year. Also Origin energy profits 2020 $400 million, 2024 profits $1.4 Billion. They have an awesome strategy for making money. A: sell something people can't function without, B: keep increasing the price until people can't afford it any more. C: make sure government is in on the scam.

    • bobswinkle on 20/03/2025 - 14:03

      Tell me, do you believe in climate change? And, if so, do you think Australia should try to reduce its emissions?

      I was going to engage, but I just want to check those two things before I do. Because otherwise we're too far apart to have a meaningful discussion.

      • Noobist45 on 20/03/2025 - 15:43

        I have a care factor of zero if we can or cannot have a meaningful conversation, you are 1 of billions on the internet.
        Do I believe in climate change, when apparent smart people (scientists) are still arguing about it then I don't know what to think. Doesn't total emissions from Australia represent almost nothing compared to the rest of the world?
        I've read if we were at complete zero emissions it would have no measurable effect at all. China and India are the heavy hitters.
        Sorry I'm off track, what has climate change got to do with origin energy going from $400 million profit to $1,4 billion profit by raising the price of an essential resource ?

        • bobswinkle on 20/03/2025 - 15:47
          +1

          There is a consensus among climate scientists. Only influencers posing as scientists are debating whether anthropogenic climate change exists. So thank you for answering my question.

          • Noobist45 on 20/03/2025 - 16:08

            @bobswinkle: Your welcome. Remind me again what my answer was ?

            • bobswinkle on 20/03/2025 - 16:13

              @Noobist45: That you don't actually understand climate science. Which means your cost/benefit analysis of what is necessary for the long-term survival of the human race is off. Which means there is no point in engaging in further discussion, because if the most knowledgeable people in the field can't convince you I don't have any chance.

              • Noobist45 on 20/03/2025 - 16:47

                @bobswinkle: You are clearly not all there, but we can only try.

                Are you saying due to my cost/benefit being way off (wasn't even aware I put a cost/benefit in there!) that we should be paying more for electricity??? And/or energy providers like origin should be profiting of basic needs because our future depends on it ???

                Hey in interest of you not looking like an insane person why don't you write something clear that explains all the garbage you are currently spouting.

                • bobswinkle on 20/03/2025 - 17:38

                  @Noobist45: Nah. I'm not going to bother. You are convinced that there is a dispute among scientists on the science of climate change. That means that reasoning is pointless. Have a good evening.

  • davemc on 20/03/2025 - 14:25

    If we went Nuke like 30 years ago would have been great. That was when renewables cost too much
    We do need something for when wind not blowing and sun not shining.
    Snowy 2.0 gone up from $4bill to $12bill and will at least be 4-5 years late
    I do not expect we have Nuke going for 15-20 years.
    Although Libs mates Gina and Clive can sell you coal until it is done :)

    Coal costing a lot as as they built in the 60's and 70's now falling apart :) They cannot easily drop the rate during the day when we do not need them.
    So charge more at night to make up for the shortfall..

    Honestly Gas is the answer short term.. You can turn it on and off.
    Once they spend the $$ for Nuke and add like double for blow out they want to make back $$
    So no way Elec prices going to be less.

    • mathew42 on 20/03/2025 - 15:00
      +1

      Electricity prices will be cheaper for the rich, because they will install solar with (car) battery backup and disconnect from the grid, with the added benefit of being isolated from grid instability.

      • davemc on 20/03/2025 - 15:47

        Rich people do not care about $.
        yes V2G be interesting I see that being pushed out and out as big companies loose $ on selling you power.
        $ wise EV a lot cheaper now if you looking for a car.
        Although no use to update a car unless you have to,
        Sad 1.2mill new cars sold in 2024 shows people like the latest and greatest, then the same people complain on social media how they struggle on $200k a year.

        • EthicsGradient on 20/03/2025 - 15:55
          +2

          Rich people do not care about $.

          I'm pretty damned sure that is not how rich people stay rich.

          Look to the billionaires. They want only two things. All of the tax breaks and all of the money.

          (OK technically, they only want one thing.)

          More seriously. Rich people notoriously do care about money. They may be willing to spend top dollar on things that last or deliver exceptional value, but it's still about watching the money. Refer to the Vimes theory of boots.

        • mathew42 on 20/03/2025 - 16:13
          +1

          Rich people do care about $ and if they can save money at the same time as protecting themselves from power outages, that is a win-win.

          In January 2024, there were 21,736,966 registered motor vehicles. The average age is 11.4 years. Sales figures of 1.2 million a year, implies it would take 20 years to replace the fleet, implying there are some much older cars on the road.

  • mathew42 on 20/03/2025 - 14:57
    +1

    The elephant in the room is electric cars with V2G. If we assume a battery capacity (average 60kWh) and that owners are willing to expend half the capacity overnight then this will add significantly to grid stability and storage capacity.

    A secondhand BYD Dolphin could make economic sense purely as a battery if you can import / generate power for free and export at a premium.

    For those worried about the sun not shining and the wind running out of puff, PHEV can act as a generator. In disaster situations it can keep the house powered with short pauses to refuel.

    • Noobist45 on 20/03/2025 - 16:40
      +1

      In terms of battery size it works out cheaper to buy the car as a battery (I think). Are EV batteries the same as home solar batteries ? Would they work as effectively as a house battery ?

      • mathew42 on 20/03/2025 - 17:22

        The technology is the same, so theoretically the answer is yes.

  • Noobist45 on 20/03/2025 - 16:55
    +1

    BYD Sealion 7 is $55,000 before drive away costs & has an 82.6kwh battery

    Tesla Powerwall 3 is $13600 + install costs and has 13.5kwh or storage

    13.5kws X 6 = 81 $13600 X 6 = $81600

    So you get 2.6 more kWh of storage and save $26600

    • mathew42 on 20/03/2025 - 17:23

      In three years time when that Sealion 7 comes off lease and is half the price, then the savings are even greater.

    • CrazySurfaNZ on 21/03/2025 - 17:48

      Agree for the most part and I think this is the way things will go, do note you will also need to include the appropriate v2g charger with the car to be able to power your house etc.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join