Free solar panel discussion

Cardew

HanSpan wrote: »

I had sort of based my numbers on the 2-3ishkWp systems that seem to be what is contemplated under these free schemes (by using the factor of generating 4thingies, using 6thingies for a kettle) but I see exactly what you mean.

In terms of the poster who uses kWh per year from his system - is that half (ish) of what his system produces, with all his working at it, or less? (sorry I really can't face finding another thread and reading 50 or so more pages

I'm finding this all fascinating but its pretty much convinced me not to bother applying for a freebie. 25 yrs of something on my roof that MAY put off buyers for probably less than £40 a year (we're not home all day) off my £800 per year electricity bill just doesn't seem worth it. Maybe if they offered to give me the feedback 3p per unit and they kept the FIT I'd be more tempted as I'd get something for all of what I generated, actually even then not so much as I think that would be a trivial amount.

I wonder if people applying realise how little they are likely to save, I'll be really curious to see what happens when people have had these for a year.

The 2 posters I refered to(yakky58 and mcif5dfc) have posted their figures.
yakky58 in 2009/10 generated a total of 2059kWh in the year and used just under 1,000kWh in his house. He has had a system 4 years.

mcfi5dfc generates just over 1,100kWh pa. Since he had an export meter fitted over a period of nearly 11 months he generated 909kWh and used 466kWh in the house. and he has wife and two young kids in house all day. He has had his system 2 years.

He is convinced that with a big system he wouldn't use much more than the 500kWh or so.

So what savings from the free systems? £40 to £140? personally I think it would be difficult to get £100 as it is not an even generation of power - about 10% is generated in the winter 3 months.

As regards appearance of panels - 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.
They can't be fitted in a conservation area if visible from the road - or on a listed building - so I rest my case.

Think how nice they would look on a thatched roof;)

Larnsky

I completely agree that on a listed building the panels wouldn't necessary look appropriate.... however on a modern house in a modern estate I personally think they look good. But everyone obviously have their own opinions.

In respect to the amount of money you're going to save, it's all down to what the current rate of electricity is (which will obviously go up over 25 years) and your background usage. However every little helps as they say and from a green point of view someone else will be using the clean energy that isn't used by the household.

grahamc2003

Larnsky wrote: »

But how many buyers do you generally think would be put off by a free system already on the roof. I have to be honest if I was buying a house it would probably attract me towards the house as opposed to put me off. Unless as I have said previously I was specifically going out to find a house that I could put solar on. The FiT rate is due to be reviewed in April 2012, no one knows which way it's going to go but I have a hunch it won't go up and is pretty likely to go down. Based on this after April 2012 the systems might not be as appealing as the pay off could be even longer so the point of people being put off due to a free system being on the roof might be irrelevant.

The problem I'm facing is that there are a few people on these forums who say that they would be put off if a free system was on the roof, however everyone I know who I've spoken to about it love the idea of a free system and agree with me that it would be a benefit to a house not a negative.

We all have to guess at how many people in the future will be put off buying due to free solar cells. But 25 years is a long time, and the return, even the most optimisitic, is peanuts compared to house prices. If the return is tiny, you don't want anything more than a tiny risk that your house may be less attractive to buyers in the future.

For many reasons, I wouldn't touch a house with a 'free' system. For a start, the option of getting the fit yourself will not available. The option of putting on a far higher powered system for the same available area will not be available (i.e. panels will increase their efficiency over time). Over 25 years, there has to be some possibility of roof work, possibly involving extra costs for the home owner, but certainly involving extra hassle if nothing else. Taking on a binding contract for the balance of 25 years would also worry me. Having to get the agreement to assign the lease on the panels, and a possible cost of doing so, would worry me too. When I come to sell, my market would be an unknown percentage of the full market, i.e. just those who don't mind (possibly then quite old and inefficient) solar panels. You may assess all those as small (or even zero!) risks, but the risks have to be balanced against the tiny return.

Now all those factors I could assess and probably think worthwile taking on the risk if my benefit was say £5k-£10k pa. But if it's £40-£140 pa, then I'll look for a house without those risks.

25 years is a very long time. Try to project yourself forward 20 years and ask if the panels will be as attractive then as you think they are today to a buyer of your property.

nick7_2

Does anyone know, if when you get the panels up and running,your energy company is under any obligation to let you choose from their cheapest tariffs? Or if because their having to pay you 41p for your pv production canthey can force you to take a more expensive tariff or withold their better offers from you?If so this would skew any profits significantly.

Terrylw1

nick7 wrote: »

Does anyone know, if when you get the panels up and running,your energy company is under any obligation to let you choose from their cheapest tariffs? Or if because their having to pay you 41p for your pv production canthey can force you to take a more expensive tariff or withold their better offers from you?If so this would skew any profits significantly.

There is no obligation, but the there is no control over elec pricing anyone in this market.

Not all tariffs may be available since it's up to them. So, it's their commercial decisions that will affect this.

nick7_2

Hi
Just a thought.
When the fits start dropping over the next few years in lower staged values. would the energy companies be keen to accept those people(at least on decent tariffs) for whom they would have to pay 41p for 25 years when they could meet their green obligations by taking on those people on the lower graded fits.
My worry is that if i go ahead with the solar pv i would be prevented from getting the best energy deals(which i do via this website at the moment)thus significantly increasing my energy bills over the 25 year period.
Cheers

Gizmosmum_2

The Feed in Tariff is split equally between the utility companies, so it doesn't really matter who you go with they all contribute on a pro rata basis depending on the number of customers they have.

You can have different Fit provider to electricity provider they don't have to be the same utility.

Poosmate

As Gizmosmum said you can still change your utility provider to the cheapest and keep your current FiTs payers. So say you sign up to British Gas for the FiTs payments and they decide to freeze you out of their best rates, just change supplier. They lose your business and are still paying you the FiTs payments. Whichever utility you go to does not have that excuse to be unreasonable with you because they're not paying you the FiTs.

Of course, some Utilities may welcome you registering with them for FiTs as they receive ROC's (Renewables Obligations Certificates), then at the end of the year they all have a big fluffy party and cash in their ROC's. Those with the least ROC's end up putting the most cash into the FiTs scheme (kind of like an incentive to do better next time).

Poo

HanSpan

Cardew wrote: »

The 2 posters I refered to(yakky58 and mcif5dfc) have posted their figures.
yakky58 in 2009/10 generated a total of 2059kWh in the year and used just under 1,000kWh in his house. He has had a system 4 years.

mcfi5dfc generates just over 1,100kWh pa. Since he had an export meter fitted over a period of nearly 11 months he generated 909kWh and used 466kWh in the house. and he has wife and two young kids in house all day. He has had his system 2 years.

He is convinced that with a big system he wouldn't use much more than the 500kWh or so.

So what savings from the free systems? £40 to £140? personally I think it would be difficult to get £100 as it is not an even generation of power - about 10% is generated in the winter 3 months.

As regards appearance of panels - 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.
They can't be fitted in a conservation area if visible from the road - or on a listed building - so I rest my case.

Think how nice they would look on a thatched roof;)

Thanks for that. I'm now really curious to go and look at the thred where they tell about this - can you give me a link or the name of the thred as I've searched for the users and could end up reading for the rest of the month if I start on all the threads I've found;)

The fact that one person with family at home uses only 500kwh (and can't envisage using more even with more power generated) where someone else uses twice as much.

Also this has all made me realise we seem to use an incredible amount of electricity (nearly 8000ksh per year) compared to what seems to be the norm so our best money saving efforts should probably be targetted at reducing that, but I'm not quite sure why we use so much more than normal - I thought we'd be about average! Any pointers at a thread where I might find some help on this or should I just start a new one somewhere?

HanSpan

Larnsky wrote: »

But how many buyers do you generally think would be put off by a free system already on the roof. I have to be honest if I was buying a house it would probably attract me towards the house as opposed to put me off. Unless as I have said previously I was specifically going out to find a house that I could put solar on. The FiT rate is due to be reviewed in April 2012, no one knows which way it's going to go but I have a hunch it won't go up and is pretty likely to go down. Based on this after April 2012 the systems might not be as appealing as the pay off could be even longer so the point of people being put off due to a free system being on the roof might be irrelevant.

The problem I'm facing is that there are a few people on these forums who say that they would be put off if a free system was on the roof, however everyone I know who I've spoken to about it love the idea of a free system and agree with me that it would be a benefit to a house not a negative.

My concern - for both getting a system and buying a house with one in the future would not be about the aesthetics. I have a sort of underlying uncomfortableness about someone having rights over my roof for 25 years that I can't get out, of and would have the same feeling if buying a house with it already there. Maybe that's just my generally cautious nature so it might not affect potential buyers, but I can only know how I feel. I'd worry that, although you have found many people are happy with the idea now, more people would start to feel as I do over time if (as I suspect) the savings are shown to be very low for most people and there are a few horror stories (as there are bound to be) of people having problems..

I worry particularly about what happens when 25 years comes (even more so as that time got close if I bought a house in say 20 years). After that, if there's some sort of problem, the cost would be down to me I suppose? I assume they don't come and remove and put your roof back to sound, so I'd then have to worry about a failing system and whether to have it taken down at an unknown cost, or renewed at an equally unknown cost. And what if there was a problem with my roof after the 25 years? Would it make it more difficult to fix leaks or damage? Basically, like grahamc2003 says in post 1024 I might consider taking those risks if the savings on my bills were into the thousands, even maybe £500 or so a year, but not when the most I can see such a system saving as £50 or maybe a little more if I tried very hard. And I'd be no more inclined to take on those risks buying a house than I am by having a system installed myself.