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.
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.
The other engineer and I just looked at each other and quietly minded our own business :-)
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.
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...
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...
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.
[1] https://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=CRN1913010...
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?