Free solar panel discussion

Cardew

energysavingexp wrote: »

if you got 50% of the FIT. the panels would not make a good enough
profit for the company after installation costs of £19000

You can buy a 4kWp system(ASG's is 3.3kWp) for under £15,000.

With ASG's massive economy of scale, I suspect £10,000 is nearer the mark for their installation costs.

Anyway I was asked a question about what I thought acceptable and gave my figure.

I am certain some would have it on their roof for a few Nectar points.

Some seem prepared to pay £500 to the firm plus £5 a month and the company still get all the FIT's.

Anecdotal dialogue
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite:

My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…


Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?


Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!


Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

Jon_Tiffany

energysavingexp wrote: »

if you got 50% of the FIT. the panels would not make a good enough
profit for the company after installation costs of £19000

None of these companies would exist if they had to give away 50% of the FIT.

Once the FIT rates for pv are dropped, which they will by 2012 at the latest, but most likely earlier - then I think we will see the free pv offers disappear. I think there will be a big drop in the rates, my advice would be to get in quick - regardless of if you are buying your own or going for a freebie system.

For the record, so that I dont appear to be pro ASG, I considered a freebie system but decided to buy my own system in the end. There are pros and cons to both options.

On a final note, I would also add that you should realy look at saving energy before you think about generating it. Things like loft insulation offer really good savings for minimal cost.

alan101140

I am a member of the "some free leccy is better than none" brigade.
However, of the wise pundits who post on this forum, I have not read mention of the difference that life style has on the sum saved,
As an elderly retired couple, it is likely that we will save far more than a working/school family simply because we shall be more able to use high consumption electric items ( washing machine, dishwasher, cooker etc) during the daylight generating period. People who are out during this period will be less able to take advantage.
However, I am still waiting to hear that Halifax Building Society has approved the lease.

grahamc2003

alan101140 wrote: »

I am a member of the "some free leccy is better than none" brigade.
.

Why on earth do you think it is 'free'?

You enter into a contract - your side is to sign away the use of a large part of your roof for 25 years. There is a cost in doing that - the opportunity cost of not using your roof for anything else for 25 years.

Next year you may have a spare 20 grand which you would like to buy your own panels with in order to get fit payments an order of magnitude greater than the value of the electricity you use. The loss of that possibility would be part of the opportunity cost.

You may also, in ten years time, decide you'd like an extra room in the loft, and the panels may rule out that possibility.

Or in 20 years time, you may decide to sell up and attract a buyer who doesn't want your aging solar panels. If your contract doesn't allow for early buyout, then your sale could fall through with your potential purchaser (with his solicitor'sadvice) unwilling to take on the lease. (And that could prove VERY expensive).

So please don't keep saying it's 'free'electricity - it isn't, it is the electricity you get for giving up the use of your roof. If you had a house you rented out for £1000per month, I doubt you would say that was 'free' money.

Cardew

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

None of these companies would exist if they had to give away 50% of the FIT.

That would be just perfect!;)

To make sure I would insist on 92.7% to the householder.

I have made it perfectly clear that I don't think the 'rent a roof' companies should be allowed to get us to pay for their profits by exploiting a loophole and claiming thousands of subsidies for individuals

I am saying 50:50% split is a far fairer figure than 93:7%

energysavingexp

Cardew wrote: »

That would be just perfect!;)

To make sure I would insist on 92.7% to the householder.

I have made it perfectly clear that I don't think the 'rent a roof' companies should be allowed to get us to pay for their profits by exploiting a loophole and claiming thousands of subsidies for individuals

I am saying 50:50% split is a far fairer figure than 93:7%

you would never get them to give you 50/50 due to the cost of the system.
also are you telling me that if you could afford to pay for solar panals to be fitted on to 1000 houses and you could keep all the FITs and rake in lots of dosh, that you would not do it.
it's called running a buisness

energysavingexp

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

None of these companies would exist if they had to give away 50% of the FIT.

Once the FIT rates for pv are dropped, which they will by 2012 at the latest, but most likely earlier - then I think we will see the free pv offers disappear. I think there will be a big drop in the rates, my advice would be to get in quick - regardless of if you are buying your own or going for a freebie system.

For the record, so that I dont appear to be pro ASG, I considered a freebie system but decided to buy my own system in the end. There are pros and cons to both options.

On a final note, I would also add that you should realy look at saving energy before you think about generating it. Things like loft insulation offer really good savings for minimal cost.

as for saving energy my house is super insulated.
with 40 tube solar hotwater system.
i recycle all the rain water.
my water bill was £560 PA now its £15 plus standing charge
i do not use any gas from march to november (winter charge is 3p kw)
my leccy bill is 50pence per day.
so my running costs are very low:j

energysavingexp

Cardew wrote: »

That would be just perfect!;)

To make sure I would insist on 92.7% to the householder.

I have made it perfectly clear that I don't think the 'rent a roof' companies should be allowed to get us to pay for their profits by exploiting a loophole and claiming thousands of subsidies for individuals

I am saying 50:50% split is a far fairer figure than 93:7%

how about: you pay for solar panals fitted on to my house and we split the FIT say 50/50?

Cardew

energysavingexp wrote: »

you would never get them to give you 50/50 due to the cost of the system.
also are you telling me that if you could afford to pay for solar panals to be fitted on to 1000 houses and you could keep all the FITs and rake in lots of dosh, that you would not do it.
it's called running a buisness

I am afraid your post shows a complete lack of understanding.

Don't try to insinuate I am 'telling you' anything of the sort. Nobody as far, as I am aware, has made any criticism of companies finding a loophole and exploiting that loophole?

My criticism is directed at the Government who allows these companies to make vast profits that we all pay.

The people who pay for these firm's profits are those who don't own but rent, live in flats or have houses with unsuitable roofs. Indeed the very poorest people in UK will be charged extra so that these firms can profit.

So just in case you haven't understood, I am not criticising those who rent out their roof, or the companies who rent the roof from these owners.

I am merely making the point that IMO(in my opinion) a 93%:7% spilt of the spoils is a derisory deal for the home owner and I consider a 50%:50% deal would be fairer.

energysavingexp

Cardew wrote: »

I am afraid your post shows a complete lack of understanding.

Don't try to insinuate I am 'telling you' anything of the sort. Nobody as far, as I am aware, has made any criticism of companies finding a loophole and exploiting that loophole?

My criticism is directed at the Government who allows these companies to make vast profits that we all pay.

The people who pay for these firm's profits are those who don't own but rent, live in flats or have houses with unsuitable roofs. Indeed the very poorest people in UK will be charged extra so that these firms can profit.

So just in case you haven't understood, I am not criticising those who rent out their roof, or the companies who rent the roof from these owners.

I am merely making the point that IMO(in my opinion) a 93%:7% spilt of the spoils is a derisory deal for the home owner and I consider a 50%:50% deal would be fairer.

LOL.
so its ok for the RICH PEOPLE who can afford to pay for the system
to take all OUR MONEY. (THE POOR ) BY CLAIMING THE FIT.
yet again the rich taking from the poor!!
if a poor person (ME) can save a few pence by having a free system and lower their bill, good look to them/us otherwise they will still have to pay the profit to the people who are claiming the FIT.
ie: if they are paying say £200 PA in leccy cost some of it going to the FIT system and if with a free system their leccy cost is £100. what they pay to the FITs is now half.