Free solar panel discussion

Larnsky

HanSpan wrote: »

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.

Well with the free systems the panels and inverter are all the responsibility of the company who installed it, if the inverter goes then they will replace it. Similarly I was told that if the panels drop below a certain efficiency then they would also be replaced at the cost of the original installer. In respect to repairs to the roof, you need to look at this on a company by company basis, I know some of them say that they will remove the panels for free up to three times (i think) within the lifetime of the contract for roof repairs or house modifications etc.

It is also the case that you can buy the panels out of the contract, however this is an expensive option as I believe you have to pay the remainder of the FiT to the company (but presumably you would then be receiving this yourself so I'm not quite sure how that works)

Cardew

HanSpan wrote: »

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?

There are several threads in the 'Green' forum. This is one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2416423

yakky58 has posted some detailed figures in post #184.

Mcfi5dhc has a post #249 where he talks about his low consumption. There is another series of posts somewhere giving his detailed figures.

ninjaryder

HanSpan wrote: »

I'm sorry if I've got this backwards but are you saying your normal electricity meter shows you've used 208? Doesn't that actually show what you've drawn from the grid? If so I think you've used 208 that you'll pay for, plus some that you've generated. The 212 generated would have gone some to your usage and some back to the grid and I don't think, without a meter to show what you've fed back separate from your normal meter, that you can tell how much you've used of your own electricity.

As far as I can work out, if I were to have one fitted without a meter specifically showing what I fed back (thus by subtraction what I'd used of my own) the only way to estimate would be to compare with what I took from the grid before I had the solar panels. I'm a bit sad and have fairly comprehensive figures of the gas and electricity I've used over several years so I could do that. I imagine most people have a life and don't keep comprehensive records of units used, so will only be able to guess based on their bills which will be particularly innacurate with the fluctuating, complicated tarifs.

Lifeless person off to read my meters again

Hi Yes i have most definatly drawn from the grid..this is mostly at night of course ave 7kw a day roughly.

zeupater

ninjaryder wrote: »

Hi Yes i have most definatly drawn from the grid..this is mostly at night of course ave 7kw a day roughly.

Hi ninjaryder

I think that what HanSpan was attempting to convey was that without an export meter the only way to estimate the proportion of generated electricity which you are using yourself would be to compare the change in imported kWh before the array against current data over a period of time ...... you would then be able to compare this reduction with the total generation meter to estimate the export percentage ....

HTH
Regards

Poosmate

HanSpan wrote: »

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?

Hi Hanspan, I guess electricity consumption is very much unique to individuals circumstances. As we do not know your circumstances, I don't think anyone could give any advice as to where to start reducing your usage.

You could always check out this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2683237

Alternatively, start your own in order to get advice specific to your circumstances.

Good luck.

Poo

thor

HanSpan wrote: »

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 would be more worried about how our energy would be generated in 25 years time. As far as I am concerned renewables should be encouraged to pepare for the time when fossil fuels eventually run out. I am amazed that so many people here on this thread are hung up by generating capacity in winter when it is dark and cloudy and how this means it is folly to be investing so much in green energy with their unreliable output. Well I think it is the fuel we should be more concerned about. Is nuclear the answer? Perhaps but then decontamination costs are not to be sniffed at and how much Uranium do we have left in the world? Won't this start to run a bit low if everyone jumps on the bandwagon like France.
If there was a massive uptake of solar pv, wind turbines etc at least that could put off the day when we would have to face life without oil and gas.
Ultimately as grim as it seems I reckon in the not too distant future there will be no oil or gas fired power stations. Instead we will have nuclear providing the bulk of generation in the winter and renewables more to the fore in the warmer months. I include solar, wave, wind, household waste burning, sewage etc as renewables.
Green technology should not be poo pooed as some do gooder leftie scheme to take over the world, I really believe that unless something new such as fusion is developed we will have no choice but to turn to renewable energy big time. Of course it will also mean that we would have to conserve more because generation will be way down compared to the present day.
As I said, it is a bit grim:(

Poosmate

Thor, I do agree with your sentiments and can't understand why the naysayers are so fixated on the belief that they will be paying for the FiTs payments. We are ALL already paying for green and renewable energies through our bills and have been for years even those who receive the FiTs now and in the future.

Many cite the fact that solar FiTs are unfair because only people with south facing (or thereabouts) roofs are eligible, but exactly the same argument could be given for any other green renewable, how many of us have a stream or river running through our gardens that we'd be able to utilise for hydro power? How many of us are in a suitable position to have a wind turbine? So their argument rules out almost all forms of micro-generation because not everyone will be able to have some sort of micro-generation on/in their property to benefit.

Another argument is that solar power in particular, does not contribute to the energy required during peak times and on face value this is quite true. BUT look beyond the face value and you realise that, with education and a change of attitudes to how and when we use our green renewable energy, it could have an effect on the peak time draw on the grid. Just like 20 years ago very little of our rubbish was recycled, now it's almost second nature to many of us to recycle much of our rubbish. The same can happen with micro-generated energy, it gets used at point of generation by using smart appliances (fridges/freezers drawing during times of generation and shut down during peak draw times, water heaters and storage heaters could be added to those). Smart appliances will most likely become the norm in the future, just like HD ready tv's today - can you buy a brand new tv that isn't HD ready today?

In the future, as more solar and turbine micro-generators are up and running, the fossil fuelled generators may be able to be fed less during the day (peak solar generating times) and fired up later to meet the needs of the peak draw time, thus saving some fossil fuel for the energy suppliers.

Honestly though, I believe peoples attitudes to electricity use will not change until we start having power cuts. I wonder if we will receive any warning before the lights go out? I wonder if they could be averted by public announcements (via the tv/media) requesting a mass turn off of certain electrical appliances? Sounds very communist doesn't it? But what is the solution? Seems the State has to tell people what to do because they are so wrapped up in their own selfish worlds to realise the damage they are causing.

Poo

Cardew

thor wrote: »

If there was a massive uptake of solar pv, wind turbines etc at least that could put off the day when we would have to face life without oil and gas.

Thor,
Whilst I understand your enthusiasm for 'green' energy; I suggest you are rather missing the point here.

We have a situation where companies have found a loophole in the regulations to swell their coffers.

To achieve this firms set up thousands of solar PV systems on thousands of separate roofs.

Can you think of anything more wasteful of our precious resources. Thousands of sets of scaffolding, inverters, monitoring equipment, vans driving to and from locations for installation and subsequent maintenance; not to mention the additional manpower.

If the aim is to encourage 'green energy' why not errect all of these panels in a brownfield site on factory roofs etc in Southern Britain(where the output is so much higher)

The sole purpose of these 'free' systems is to enable firms to profit from the very high subsidy(FIT) meant for individual properties.

If we, the customer, are to pick up the tab for 'green energy' at least let us generate that energy as efficiently as possible and with the least use of resources.

molinarix

Hello, I live in Ireland. Very interesting thread. I'm trying to find some similar stuff here.

grahamc2003

Poosmate wrote: »

Another argument is that solar power in particular, does not contribute to the energy required during peak times and on face value this is quite true. BUT look beyond the face value and you realise that, with education .....
Poo

I'm afraid, that with more education, there'd be a lot less 'green' nonsense.

You're welcome to your view, but what formal education backs it up i.e did you study engineering at university like many of the 'naysayers' on here? (I take it you realise that engineering is the formal discipline required to understand energy, energy conversion etc etc). I don’t doubt your sincerity at all - it’s just that I feel you should realise that others, probably better educated in this particular area, may be saying something worthwhile (for the environment)

'Green' to me (these days, sadly) means doing something because of an ideology, and !!!!!! what any engineers say! Seen it with home windmills (B&Q no longer sell them)- how much was spent on those? How much energy spent on manufacturing them, sending them half way around the world, then to all four corners of the uk, how many miles drive by installers? And the benefit - pretty much zero, and sometimes negative. All predicted by 'naysayers’ (i.e. engineers who knew they wouldn't work in that environment). The whole shebang wasn’t very ‘environmental’ was it?

While pv isn't as bad as that, it isn't much better - hence the absolutely massive subsidy of ten times the value of the electricity generated. It isn't about securing our future electricity supply at all - the country would be bankrupt well before that with pv.

All engineers want (what they are trained to do) is get the maximum benefit, taking into account all considerations including the environment, as they always have done, for each pound spent.

In case you think I am alone in these views, here’s a final statement from a student project from a group of mechanical engineering students (yes, it’s obvious even to students) ..

<i>we cannot continue to throw money down the drain for nonsense when real energy solutions can be harvested by real engineers</i>