Solar Power - always a scam??

choille

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=22494.0;wap2

Is this the answer?

CFC

BFG wrote: »

here's a few supplier website details on payback...
1
Payback


The cost of a greener house


Cost of Condensing boilerCondensing boiler £2,000
Energy saving per year £52
Payback period 38 years

Cost of Installation of full heating controls package
Installation of full heating controls package £2,240
Energy saving per year £65
Payback period 34 years

Thank you. It just shows up the government- euro scam about boilers. The cost of central heating has shot up since the regulations changed - and although the government trumpets that these boilers will save you money, it just shows what a scam it is.

Bongedone

CFC wrote: »

Thank you. It just shows up the government- euro scam about boilers. The cost of central heating has shot up since the regulations changed - and although the government trumpets that these boilers will save you money, it just shows what a scam it is.

Those figures are incorrect. The boilers save a lot more than that. Did you read my post?

Believe me there is no scam on the boilers. If you ever have to replace an old one wiht new then you will find out.

BFG_2

A neat little trick that a lot of these scammers are playing is the 'ROI' sleight of hand....

It goes like this.....

ROI stands for Return On Investment and it is similar to the interest you receive from the bank.

So if you spend £5000 on solar, and it saves you £500 a year, this is a 10% ROI.
The same £5000 in a bank or BS account will only earn you £50 interest ie a 0.5% ROI

So what you should do Mr & Mrs Potential Victim is buy the solar and get 20 YES REALLY 20 times the ROI that a bank gives you.

The calculationsare indeed correct and so it seems perfectly sensible to get 10% instead of 0.5%, but can anyone see the 'sleight'??

eco

My local goverment has a scheme were they are installing loft insullation and cavity wall insulaition free if your house needs it, I got loft insulation, so it won't take 13 years for me to see the benfit, I actually could tell the house is that bit warmer, didn't think I would.

choille

Insulation is one of the most effective things you can do - super insulated houses cost very little to heat. New build in Scotland now has to be effectively insulated to gain Planning Permission & Building Warrant approvals.

thescouselander

chopperharris wrote: »

We need to rethink the power usage in the home , there is no reason why we still use 240 for lighting if using solar and long life rechargable batteries would reduce a 1/3 of our bills.Even tvs and computers use a step down convertor from 240 to 12-24 dc which is wasted energy and increased production costs to the consumer.

The key to self generation through wind and solar is to fuel the grid , not merely fill batteries that are expensive and have a limited lifespan.Harnessing the free energy , then having the power companies take this energy at more than you pay for yours from them means that you are getting free energy when you need it ....and without batteries and its expense.

Are you serious? You clearly don't understand how electricity works. The national grid distributes power at many thousands of volts which is stepped down to 240v for distrabution to your house. Power is voltage x Current, the larger the current the thicker the wire you need. From a practical point of view 240v deliveres enough power for your home appliances at a current the requires a wire of a sensible guage.

Some devices (like a Computer) will step the voltage down further others (like a Microwave or CRT TV) will step it up again to thousands of volts so they can work. An energy saving lightbulb needs a high voltage to work so under your setup you'd have to step the voltage up from 12v to something higher. Voltage is stepped up and down all the time - yes, there are losses in doing this but they are relitively small. We could run everything off batteries but its just not practical.

This is what winds me up about most environmentalists - they just dont understand the science behind how things work.

I really recommend the book I linked to earlier, it explains the issue of sustainable power in terms someone whitout a technical background will understand. You will see that solar and wind power will never even come close to meeting the countries energy requirements.

choille

Well - we had a windmill systen that produced 24 Volts which we stored in batteries once it had been stepped down. We then had 12 volt lighting system, but by getting rid of 12 volt lighting system we put it through an inverter to give us 'mains' 240 volts - we could then run low voltage lights which required much smaller cables throughout the house & also allowed longer life throughout the batteries. Once the batteries were filled up we had a 24 volt water heater, so excess power was 'dumped' into the water & thereby radiators too. And the back up to that was air 'dump' heaters mounted on the walls.
Windy summers were rather stifling!

We lived on an isolated peninsular with out mains. So a necessity some would say.
PS. we had 54 ex-GPO glass batteries from a telephone exchange.

I think the whole system - windmill, batteries, inverter cost around £10,000.
Our windmill was a large Proven on top of a hill. It suited us grand.

Scotland is self sufficient in power - we sell to South of the border. We have ample hydro schemes. A lot of the proposed wind farms here are to sell electrickery to England.

Cardew

The DTI(Department of Trade and Industry) have tested solar hot water systems. It is not suprising that the solar industry are not keen to give the study any publicity, and given the(understandable) emphasis on all things Green, neither are the Government.

I posted this on this site a couple of years ago. Obviously the saving figures are 2 years out of date.

QUOTE]http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file16826.pdf


That DTI link is really interesting.

It is very technical but basically the DTI tested 8 systems (flat planel and Evacuated tube) side by side for a year situated in Southern England(Kew -Surrey)

They drew off 150 litres, in one go, each day on one test and in 3 smaller amounts in another.

I have converted the annual output to kWh.

The lowest annual output was 955kWh the highest was 1,350kWh.

So if you have gas, depending on the efficiency of your boiler, your cost per kWh is approx 2.5 pence.

So you are looking at annual savings of £24 to £34.

However the annual electrical consumption running the pump varied from zero on one system(solar twin) to 108kWh. So from those savings you could deduct up to £10.

So from Government tests it demonstrates that annual savings from solar Hot Water would range from about £15 a year to £27 if you have gas. and possibly as high as £45 for other fuels(if you live in Southern England)

That is of course leaving out any maintenance that might be required.
[/QUOTE]

Put simply, solar hot water is just a joke in Money Saving terms.

Solar generation is even less Money saving at the moment, but clearly has the potential with new technology to become vastly cheaper to manufacture and install.

A_fiend_for_life

BFG wrote: »

True or false?

Solar power doesn't work. Sorry what I mean is there are no solar power systems that are cost effective.

This means that by the very nature of the science, any company selling solar power systems are scammers.

They rely on blatant lies such as 'pays for itself in 6 months' or 'reduces your electricity and gas bills by 75%'

Here's an economist / journalist case study:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/may/09/green-your-home-solar-panels

Payback according to this one is about 10 years. I've not worked through his calculations though.

Given that the system is guaranteed for 25 years and energy prices look likely to increase it would seem a reasonable investment. ROCs contribute to some of the payback and feed in tariffs will too as soon as the government pulls their finger out.

There is some pressure to pay FITs for all energy generated rather than excess. Good for those with PV but a bad idea for encouraging energy efficiency amongst PV owners. Free money for those that can afford it?

Another point on FITs is they will be quite high to start with favouring early adopters but will reduce over time as PV becomes more affordable favouring later adopters. A bit of a crystal ball exercise.

The rising cost of energy is a double edged sword for PV I suspect.

Might be best to compare the UK and German markets to determin the optimum time for PV.

For low consumption households who have the cash up front and intend staying put I certainly think they are worth it. Generally the more excess that can be generated the better so they favour multiple panels. ie 16 to 24 k :eek: thats a lot of credit card tarting.