Free solar power system. Is it a scam?

DonSwan

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

Ok, it can and does happen. Firstly, you need to understand the difference between an inverter and a transformer. An inverter typically takes DC current and converts it to 240VAC. A transformer takes a voltage and converts it to a higher or lower voltage. Inside the transformers are two coils with different size windings. The process is completely reversible.

Why do you think they call it 'grid tied'....

OK, thanks for explaining. What does "grid tied" mean?

Jon_Tiffany

DonSwan wrote: »

OK, thanks for explaining. What does "grid tied" mean?

Wikipedia has a fairly detailed page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_tie_inverter

Basically, it means that the electricity from the panels can feed back into the grid. There are various regulations that must be met to ensure safety - e.g. not feeding power back into the grid in the event of a power cut.

I did come across a website a while back that explained it really well, but typically I cant find it now! Cardew will probably be along shortly to give a better explanation.

Gizmosmum_2

zeupater wrote: »

Hi


The REAL code & membership is supposed to be there to increase consumer confidence in this new business sector, however, I am surprised to find that members are being allowed to push practices up against the allowable boundaries at such an early stage ..... take also, for example, the Tesco(Enact) contract three stage payment clause (25%/35%/40%), what a surprise, the maximum allowable percentages in order to sit on the maximum possible cash pile at the earliest possible stage, whilst there are consumer oriented programmes on TV advising against payment up-front ..... REAL code to protect consumers ?, they should get real themselves, it's there to make someone serious money from the membership fees .... 'apple-cart'/'upset' ? .... I doubt it.

Regards

In fairness to the installers, unless they have some serious cash behind them they can't possibly put all the money up front and take a gamble on whether the customer will pay them on time. If smaller installers couldn't take a sizeable deposit (which is guaranteed in case the company goes bust) they wouldn't be able to buy the gear to install the panels. The end result would be that loads of really good smaller installers who take huge pride in their work wouldn't be able to carry on installing as a result of cashflow problems. Not everyone is a cowboy and out to scam people - this stuff is seriously expensive to buy, even at commercial rates.

Gizmosmum_2

Earlier in the thread the woman from ASG said they have signed up lots of OAPs, and made a joke about bungalow roofs. But I would be surprised if the firms who operate these schemes don't target OAPs anyway - after all OAPs are usually hard up, easy to dupe with figures, and they can't read the small print. The property for sale on the ASG website is an old person's bungalow by the look of it.

[/QUOTE]

I live in a bungalow, have done for 13 years and I've still got over 20 before I hit pension age My eco bling looks fab and I've got a warm cosy feeling from it (or maybe that's my log burner :rotfl:)

Got a bit of a complex now about the oap bungalows :eek:

zeupater

Gizmosmum wrote: »

In fairness to the installers, unless they have some serious cash behind them they can't possibly put all the money up front and take a gamble on whether the customer will pay them on time. If smaller installers couldn't take a sizeable deposit (which is guaranteed in case the company goes bust) they wouldn't be able to buy the gear to install the panels. The end result would be that loads of really good smaller installers who take huge pride in their work wouldn't be able to carry on installing as a result of cashflow problems. Not everyone is a cowboy and out to scam people - this stuff is seriously expensive to buy, even at commercial rates.

Hi

I agree, times are hard regarding credit availability, particularly to small business. However, it still must be recognised that most operating in the solar pv sector will be afforded credit payment terms by their suppliers. I'm not familiar with the market sector, but I would be surprised if the terms weren't 30days EOM, so potentially up to 60 days credit for orders placed at the beginning of a month. If delivery lead times are reasonable it is likely that the installation will have been completed and consumers cash will have been paid over before the installer pays for the materials ..... it seems to be standard practise for installers to hold back the MCS documentation until full/final payment is received from the customer (a very good incentive for prompt payment !!). Considering the current margins available in the sector, if any regular system installer is suffering serious cashflow problems there is something wrong with their business model .......

Regards

Cardew

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

Wikipedia has a fairly detailed page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_tie_inverter

Basically, it means that the electricity from the panels can feed back into the grid. There are various regulations that must be met to ensure safety - e.g. not feeding power back into the grid in the event of a power cut.

I did come across a website a while back that explained it really well, but typically I cant find it now! Cardew will probably be along shortly to give a better explanation.

A Google of the term will produce loads of explanations, and you can choose one pitched at your level.

I rather got the impression that DonSwan thought that properties were supplied with 4,000 volts that was stepped down to 240v??

Anyway let us reassure people that locally generated electricity can be exported.

Gizmosmum_2

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I agree, times are hard regarding credit availability, particularly to small business. However, it still must be recognised that most operating in the solar pv sector will be afforded credit payment terms by their suppliers. I'm not familiar with the market sector, but I would be surprised if the terms weren't 30days EOM, so potentially up to 60 days credit for orders placed at the beginning of a month. If delivery lead times are reasonable it is likely that the installation will have been completed and consumers cash will have been paid over before the installer pays for the materials ..... it seems to be standard practise for installers to hold back the MCS documentation until full/final payment is received from the customer (a very good incentive for prompt payment !!). Considering the current margins available in the sector, if any regular system installer is suffering serious cashflow problems there is something wrong with their business model .......

Regards

You are right in some circumstances but take the current situation, most wholesalers have put on hold orders for pv gear until the spending review implications were clarified (quite rightly who wants to have 500k of equipment sitting that no-one wants).

The problem is now that everyone is going full speed again stocks are very low and we're on a 3 week delay for many components. The consequences of which are 3 weeks of expensive staff to pay with no return, the wholesalers don't provide credit to the majority of companies ( I know of one company who provides 10k credit on 30 days to their best installers that's enough to buy one and a bit systems) So now the smaller firms are sitting with 5-10 systems to install but not enough credit to service the short term debt - that's why Real Assurance allows the deposit to be the size it is - otherwise the smaller guys just wouldn't get a look in.

I'm not pleading poverty for the industry, just pointing out that cashflow on products with this value is actually quite difficult to manage and just because some firms are taking the larger deposit doesn't mean they are fleecing their customers - and the deposit is protected

zeupater

Gizmosmum wrote: »

You are right in some circumstances but take the current situation, most wholesalers have put on hold orders for pv gear until the spending review implications were clarified (quite rightly who wants to have 500k of equipment sitting that no-one wants).

The problem is now that everyone is going full speed again stocks are very low and we're on a 3 week delay for many components. The consequences of which are 3 weeks of expensive staff to pay with no return, the wholesalers don't provide credit to the majority of companies ( I know of one company who provides 10k credit on 30 days to their best installers that's enough to buy one and a bit systems) So now the smaller firms are sitting with 5-10 systems to install but not enough credit to service the short term debt - that's why Real Assurance allows the deposit to be the size it is - otherwise the smaller guys just wouldn't get a look in.

I'm not pleading poverty for the industry, just pointing out that cashflow on products with this value is actually quite difficult to manage and just because some firms are taking the larger deposit doesn't mean they are fleecing their customers - and the deposit is protected

Hi

I agree, for smaller/newer players in the industry it's going to be much harder to compete with the 'big boys' simply because of the relatively small added value element from the install itself (small companies usually have an overhead advantage) and lack of access to the credit and bulk discount pricing available to larger concerns. However, it must be remembered that not all installers are small, with a number having group turnovers measured well into the hundreds of millions. My example on payment terms was for Tesco/(Enact), definately not small concerns and very likely to be on at least 60daysEOM terms with their own suppliers, that's why I'm surprised that they're being allowed to push their own payment terms to the maximum allowable boundaries.

As an aside, looking at the 'rent-a-roof' market (as this is what the thread is about afterall), considering the volumes involved, if they've not negotiated directly with the manufacturers, or screwed the wholesalers down to reasonable levels, then they're fools to themselves (which I seriously doubt). It is purely due to the fact that because of volume purchasing and installation the fully installed cost is so low for rent-a-roof providers and they are still allowed to claim FiTs at the same rate as someone paying full market price that I do not agree with what they are being allowed to do (i.e. exploit the loophole). I believe that this simply diverts corporate investment in renewable technologies away from schemes where it could be better utilised.

Regards

Gizmosmum_2

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I agree, for smaller/newer players in the industry it's going to be much harder to compete with the 'big boys' simply because of the relatively small added value element from the install itself (small companies usually have an overhead advantage) and lack of access to the credit and bulk discount pricing available to larger concerns. However, it must be remembered that not all installers are small, with a number having group turnovers measured well into the hundreds of million. My example on payment terms was for Tesco/(Enact), definately not small concerns and very likely to be on at least 60daysEOM terms with their own suppliers, that's why I'm surprised that they're being allowed to push their own payment terms to the maximum allowable boundaries.

As an aside, looking at the 'rent-a-roof' market (as this is what the thread is about afterall), considering the volumes involved, if they've not negotiated directly with the manufacturers, or screwed the wholesalers down to reasonable levels, then they're fools to themselves (which I seriously doubt). It is purely due to the fact that because of volume purchasing and installation the fully installed cost is so low for rent-a-roof providers and they are still allowed to claim FiTs at the same rate as someone paying full market price that I do not agree with what they are being allowed to do (i.e. exploit the loophole). I believe that this simply diverts corporate investment in renewable technologies away from schemes where it could be better utilised.

Regards

Point taken about larger companies - but the deposit scenario doesn't apply to rent a roof schemes, no contribution from the customer needed.

zeupater

Gizmosmum wrote: »

Point taken about larger companies - but the deposit scenario doesn't apply to rent a roof schemes, no contribution from the customer needed.

Agree, the rent-a-roof element was raised simply due to the references to volume purchase discounts and credit terms between installers and their own suppliers ...... as well as attempting to bring the thread back on subject .....