Free solar power system. Is it a scam?

savemoney

They changed web site now

I live 1.45 minutes away from them. I love this fitted always wanted solar panels and great to save some money on bills

A Shade Greener is a Renewable Electricity Generator looking for 2000 suitable houses in parts* of the Yorkshire area, and parts* of Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Humberside on which to install FREE high-quality Solar Panels.

* We will be installing onto roofs that fall within a 1hr travel zone from Junction 36 of the M1 motorway

skelly01

I have looked through al the thread pages, are there any other companies doing this?
it does seems too good to be true, but if it is lucrative then why have no other companies found out about the loopholes etc?
I live in Scotland a new build 4 bed detached south facing house.
Takes 3 hours from Yorkshire so not totally out of reach!!

decsdad

Skelly,
I am in Scotland too, same type of house, have just applied for the est grant/loan, its worth considering. Interest free loan over 8 years covers my part of the cost.

savemoney

Hopefully if this company can do this and make it pay surely others will follow? The main stumbling block is probably getting the money from banks/investors

ArankaKarme

wind power may make more sense for you, if you're in the city solar is the way to go. With a solar electric system there are no moving parts so it lasts a long time, it pays for itself depending on where you live i have heard of getting money back in three years. If you finance it very often the payments are less than your electric bill.

Cardew

ArankaKarme wrote: »

wind power may make more sense for you, if you're in the city solar is the way to go. With a solar electric system there are no moving parts so it lasts a long time, it pays for itself depending on where you live i have heard of getting money back in three years. If you finance it very often the payments are less than your electric bill.

Welcome to the forum.

I am afraid your post is totally wrong.

There is no way you 'get your money back' with solar in three years, 15 years is more realistic.

Wind power is just a complete disaster - many small systems use more power than they generate!

Mankysteve

Cardew wrote: »

Welcome to the forum.

I am afraid your post is totally wrong.

There is no way you 'get your money back' with solar in three years, 15 years is more realistic.

Wind power is just a complete disaster - many small systems use more power than they generate!

With fit payback should be reduced to 12 years ish on a typical install if electrical prices dnt increase which they will and properly by a lot over the next 5 yo 6years.

You are wrong about most small wind turbines using more than make your referring to the rubbish windsave/B&Q model. Wind turbines are useless in city environments though and will produce little power and take ages to pay back, but in open country side places with proper sighting small wind turbines are viable.

Also if you out in the country side its defiantly worth looking at small scale hydro as these are extremely under utilised in the uk and have great potential to supply large amounts of power with very short paybacks typical around 4 years. with minimum of ecological foot print.

Cardew

Mankysteve wrote: »

You are wrong about most small wind turbines using more than make your referring to the rubbish windsave/B&Q model. Wind turbines are useless in city environments though and will produce little power and take ages to pay back, but in open country side places with proper sighting small wind turbines are viable.

Perhaps you should read this report of a proper trial of 23 installations and see if you still consider them viable;

http://www.warwickwindtrials.org.uk/3.html

The final report here:

http://www.warwickwindtrials.org.uk/resources/Warwick+Wind+Trials+Final+Report+.pdf

Trial results The average energy generated per turbine per day across the sample set has been 214 Wh (including times when turbines were switched off for maintenance or due to failures). This is equivalent to an average of 78 kWh of energy produced per site per year and an average capacity factor of 0.85%. (This compares to typical capacity factors of between 10% and 30% for larger turbines on free standing sites in good areas).

If the results are adjusted to exclude data from periods when turbines were switched off or broken the average energy generated per turbine per day rises to 628 Wh (230kWh per year equivalent) and an average capacity factor of 4.15%. Of particular note is that turbines on our high rise sites, Eden, Ashton and Southorn Court were able generate as much energy in one month as other turbines in the trial did in one year. It is unfortunate that these high performing turbines had to remain switched off for the majority of the trial following complaints about noise from the building residents.

The best performing turbine in the trial generated an average of 2.382 kWh per day when in operation, equivalent to 869 kWh in a full year. The poorest site generated an average of 41Wh per day when in operation or 15 kWh per year, which is less than the energy it consumed to run the turbine’s electronics. Energy consumption averages 80Wh per day per turbine (29kWh per year) which is significant on some sites.

It really is worth noting that the average was 78kWh per year(about £8 of electricity) the very best of the 23, in an excellent site, might have generated only 869kWh in a year – except the noise and vibration were so bad that it couldn’t be used.

So if you think they are viable!!!!!

Mankysteve

There all micro wind turbines mainly in urban areas. Small wind turbines in rural areas will work.

Cardew

Mankysteve wrote: »

There all micro wind turbines mainly in urban areas. Small wind turbines in rural areas will work.

Have you bothered reading the report?

This project will monitor 23 rooftop wind installations on a variety of urban and rural sites

the trial has ended up with 14 Ampair 600 systems, 5 Windsave WS1000, 1 Eclectic Stealthgen 400, 1 Swift 1.5kW and 3 Zephyr AirDolphin systems (23 + 1 spare). The sites range from Aberdeen to Cornwall.

Even on top of high rise blocks on hills with very high wid speed predictions they don't produce.

So you on a money saving website are presumably recommending that people buy small turbines?

Do you have any data to back up that recommendation?