Free solar power system. Is it a scam?

Cardew

SarahLucyD wrote: »

Charliebilly - interesting article, obviously a lot of guess work involved there as they haven't spoken to us. There are also some minor inaccuracies in respect of income - it will actually be more than what they are quoting per system per lifetime of the scheme but they have forgotten to take into account that the FIT payment is index linked.

What I can clear up for them is that at the end of the scheme, if the homeowner doesn't want to keep the system we simply remove it free of charge and will therefore be responsible for the recycling of them.

Sarah - ASG

I thought it contained a lot of inaccuracies for a so called specialist magazine.

As you say no index linking - a major admission when they were pricing to the exact pound.

Ditto with the 3p/kWh export, not index linked and how they reached £500 for 25 years is a mystery. Even allowing for the lack of index linking, £20 a year indicates just 667kWh exported. You would think they would know you can opt for 50% = 1500kWh.

This statement is a nonsense as well:

As mentioned above, each module used has an electricity output (under perfect light conditions) of a minimum of 185 watts. Combined, the 18 modules installed on the roof the system has a theoretical output of 3,330kWh.

The theoretical output of solar panels in kWh depends where in the world they are situated, as well as orientation, temp etc.

Certainly way in excess of 3,300kWh pa can be generated from a 3.3kWp system - albeit not in Yorkshire.

I would love to know if their estimate of £10k is accurate;)

Although the company noted that this particular solar installation would have a retail cost of approximately £20,000 the cost of components and installation are likely to be significantly less than this figure. Based on current large-quantity purchasing prices typical across the industry, the cost of the installation could be £10,000 or lower, equivalent to a 50% discount on the retail price mentioned.

Not that Sarah would be allowed to divulge such secrets, but I suspect it is pretty accurate and puts the prices we are expected to pay into perspective!!

All in all though pretty sloppy journalism.

Cardew

To the above I notice that in the savings for the user they state that the user will use 60% to 80% of the generated output(a ridiculously high figure for most people with such a large system)

However in the calculations they assume that the user will use all(100%) of the 3,000kWh at a very high figure of 12p/kWh and they use £360 a year as the basis of their figures.

Cardew

DaviesL wrote: »

I don't think Sarah will be able to post again, I heard that someone has recently complained that she was representing a company and under rules brought in early this year apparently she can't do that any more.

I agree with you that the claims of usage are rather inflated but don't think that 60% is unachievable.

As regards their estiimate of £10k being the cost of the system, I don't think Sarah would have been willing to divulge the true cost, that is very commercially sensitive information.

Hi,

I hope you are incorrect about Sarah being banned. I cannot think who would complain, or why.

She has been excellent on this Board, informative, frank and never once 'pushed her company' - she has no need to as other posters have been enthusiastic enough about the system.

I am sure others who have contributed to this forum would agree with those sentiments.

DonnySaver

Cardew wrote: »

Hi,

I hope you are incorrect about Sarah being banned. I cannot think who would complain, or why.

She has been excellent on this Board, informative, frank and never once 'pushed her company' - she has no need to as other posters have been enthusiastic enough about the system.

I am sure others who have contributed to this forum would agree with those sentiments.

Quite right. I think it's great the someone from ASG can come on here and answer everones questions. If Sarah wasn't on here then this thread would have ended long ago.

Optimist

DaviesL wrote: »

I don't think Sarah will be able to post again, I heard that someone has recently complained that she was representing a company and under rules brought in early this year apparently she can't do that any more.

Unfortunately it would seem you are correct as I note she has had her posting privileges removed. I cant imaging why someone would complain. I for one found her responses very interesting and I would hope she obtains the relevant permissions to continue reposting

DonnySaver

Optimist wrote: »

Unfortunately it would seem you are correct as I note she has had her posting privileges removed. I cant imaging why someone would complain. I for one found her responses very interesting and I would hope she obtains the relevant permissions to continue reposting

That's really quite sad. How can we go about getting SarahLucyD reinstated??

CharlieBilly

Sarah need to contact abuse to get reinstated, shame she didnt get permission as I suspect its only abuse and not board guide who can grant her to post again

savemoney

It wasnt me I did point the rules though maybe someone saw my post and then complained or abuse saw the thread. I mealy informed Sarah of the rule so she get checked out and hopefully remain

XRayDave

Hi Guys & Gals

Yup, Sarah has indeed been banned. She has received a nice email from MSE however - who knows, she may be back?

It is nice to have a representative from a commercial company that is so open & honest. Personally, I cannot see anything wrong with her posts that would warrant a ban.

Seens rather unfair as Sarah has never pretended to be anything other than an employee of ASG - she could quite easily have kept that hidden but to her credit, she has been open & above board from day #1.

Just my tuppence you understand.

XRD

savemoney

There's no wrong with her posts that I can see just she needed to get authorization thats why I posted the rule so she can get it obviously she didnt

Its not unfair the rules apply to everyone, what she didnt do is ask

She came on so she claimed because of "because our company was in danger of being defamed" and remained later to be helpful

She could easily be reinstated later companies need to be checked out so they are who they say they are