Solar panels and combi boiler - feasible?

jonnyw_2

Skiduck wrote:

Couple 2-5 kids, 4/5 bed house, hot and cold feed washing machine - solar would be viable economically.

1 Could you explain how it is economically viable to pursuade me to go and buy one

2 You have quoted £3500 as the cost of a system - if this is wrong what figure would you suggest? Is it £6000 as has been mentioned?

3 What do you say such a system would produce a year?

4 What do you say a system like this would save a year if anything assuming say oil electricity and gas as the fuels it could replace?

Cardew

Skiduck wrote:

To try and put this to bed a bit, here's a simple rule of thumb showing usage, viability and environmental conscience:

Couple 2-5 kids, 4/5 bed house, hot and cold feed washing machine - solar would be viable economically.

.

No not good enough!

You seem to assume that the more domestic Hot water you use the more a solar system produces. It doesn't; it can only produce a finite amount.

The example from the solarkent(Generys) site that you quoted as an authority is worth using.

Simon with a large 3 panel(not the normal 2) system with a larger tank saved 4,395 kWh.
That at today's prices would save approx £120 if using gas. With oil that might save £180 (but as pointed out earlier Economy 7 would be cheaper)

So using those figures support your assertation with some figures please. Cost of borrowing to be included please.

Skiduck

Cardew wrote:

You didn't come up with the figure of £6,000 but YOU stated it that it would be paid back in 15-16 years.

Similarly YOU gave the figure as 1,000 liters in support of your argument.


In March 2006 you stated:



You are a proponent of the solar industry and sell their products; so you cannot have it both ways. If you make or support statements on the financial viability of Solar energy on this forum, you must be prepared to defend them.

I have to say you are making a pretty poor job of doing so.

half facts again, if you are prepared to read what you want to read, I can not help you - I never ever said I was in the solar industry, I said I had joined one of my customers, heating engineers.
Solar does not give a finite amount of hot water, do some research, the finity you think is more to do with the size of any cylinder, the consumption per hour.

If you think my data is wrong, your's is completely propesterous, as you seem to think the only variable to take into account if the cost of running DHW at this present time, I have told you time and time again that this is an incorrect way to calculate. Hard to understand?

All the information given has been in response to questions, figures given are from the manufacturers, researchers and independant bodies. I suggest you write to them all and demand they resign as you are far more capable than they are.

I have always stated that solar panels are very much dependent on a persons individual circumstances, much as a heat pump - a heat pump will do no good in a poorly insulated house.

I have stated in numerous threads other ways to reduce energy bills other than using sustainable technology.

I believe that you may have been caught out/ or nearly caught out by a solar scam - there are purely solar panel companies out there that have done little for consumer confidence with sky high prices and totally fake payback schedules - I have heard 4 years been quoted by some companies.

Why bother including in your arguments, future interest, debit or credit, when you constantly negate the information I give you about the future costs of fuel? seems a bit one sided doesn't it - you can include and exclude whatever you like in your argument - I include all data available to every and I am wrong?

You still have not answered my question, which I have posed many times to you, are you involved with an energy company?

Skiduck

Cardew wrote:

Similarly YOU gave the figure as 1,000 liters in support of your argument.

wrong again - I supplied a case study detailing a saving of 1000 litres.

paul_h

Skiduck wrote:

wrong again - I supplied a case study detailing a saving of 1000 litres.

It hardly 'details' the saving - there is no factual evidence to support this, it just mentions an average 1000 litre saving. I could understand it if this was across the six properties in the study, but not an 'average', seeing that an average property would use much less than 1000 litres per annum for DHW anyway.

Some of the other figures in the study are rather dubious too - at one point it mentions installing a system for 940 euro, that's less than £600! :rotfl:

The Belfast Energy Agency looks to me like a quango set up to promote sustainable energy sources.

jonnyw_2

Skiduck wrote:

Why bother including in your arguments, future interest, debit or credit, when you constantly negate the information I give you about the future costs of fuel? seems a bit one sided doesn't it - you can include and exclude whatever you like in your argument - I include all data available to every and I am wrong?

QUOTE]

Are you saying financial viability is dependant upon future fuel costs going up?

Skiduck

paul_h wrote:

It hardly 'details' the saving - there is no factual evidence to support this, it just mentions an average 1000 litre saving. I could understand it if this was across the six properties in the study, but not an 'average', seeing that an average property would use much less than 1000 litres per annum for DHW anyway.

Some of the other figures in the study are rather dubious too - at one point it mentions installing a system for 940 euro, that's less than £600! :rotfl:

The Belfast Energy Agency looks to me like a quango set up to promote sustainable energy sources.

it also says the oil price is 0.12 euros (8 pence) 6 years ago, now 34 pence - the study was 6 years ago, have you ever thought that perhaps the price increase was not restricted to the fuel, but materials aswell? Or the fact what materials were used, Solar Navitron do very cheap units.

So, how was this avergae concluded if it was not the average over the 6 properties?

A lot of information is out there from various sources, a lot from independent agencies, if you choose to treat this data as fallacy, it's not my problem.

In the article, it tells you why the Belfast Energy Agency was set up, similar to our EST. I will of course investigate a bit more for you to find out if it has any commercial connections.

Skiduck

jonnyw wrote:

Skiduck wrote:

Why bother including in your arguments, future interest, debit or credit, when you constantly negate the information I give you about the future costs of fuel? seems a bit one sided doesn't it - you can include and exclude whatever you like in your argument - I include all data available to every and I am wrong?

QUOTE]

Are you saying financial viability is dependant upon future fuel costs going up?

the viability is of course relative to fuel prices, if fuel prices drop dramatically then the payback will be longer, who will need solar or any other energy source if it costs £10 per year to run your central DHW? Conversely, if gas were to quadruple tomorrow for some strange reason, and continue on a steep incline, the payback for any of these systems would reduce. And a lot of people would be unable to afford hot water.
These are obviously the 2 sharp ends of the spectrum, but that is the relationship.

paul_h

Skiduck wrote:

it also says the oil price is 0.12 euros (8 pence) 6 years ago, now 34 pence - the study was 6 years ago, have you ever thought that perhaps the price increase was not restricted to the fuel, but materials aswell? Or the fact what materials were used, Solar Navitron do very cheap units.

If anything, I would say panel prices have fallen as uptake and competition in the industry has increased - £600 for an installed system then, or now, is pretty far-fetched. This price is supposedly for a Thermomax system, a pretty common manufacturer of evacuated tube arrays - you may be able to buy a small tube array for this price, but not a complete installed system.

Skiduck wrote:

So, how was this avergae concluded if it was not the average over the 6 properties?

I didn't say it wasn't the average, they are obviously saying that 1000 litres is the average saving. What I was saying is that I cannot understand how they can arrive at this figure given that the average DHW usage equates to around 650 litres per annum. It just doesn't make sense.

Skiduck wrote:

In the article, it tells you why the Belfast Energy Agency was set up, similar to our EST. I will of course investigate a bit more for you to find out if it has any commercial connections.

I'm sure it's not a commercial body... as I said earlier, it's a quango.

Skiduck

do they have more baths in ireland then?

All you can do is accept with a bit of scepticism untill it is either proved or disproved, you obviously can't take it as a definate fact unless you did the research yourself. Like most things in life, either take with a pinch of salt or believe until you have contrary evidence.