Free solar panel discussion

zeupater

Doc_N wrote: »

Sounds fine in theory, but huge solar farms in the south of England need either land (high capital outlay or rental payments) or the roofs of buildings. And the owners of the roofs will want to be paid - quite possibly as much as the FIT payments are costing now.

.... or the usual way to encourage organisations to invest, just offset the capital outlay against tax. If this was controlled well it would really launch large scale UK corporate pv.

Jon_Tiffany

Cardew wrote: »

Huge solar farms would be much much more efficient and cost the electricity customers a lot less extra on their bills.

You might find this interesting:

http://www.yougen.co.uk/blog-entry/1585/Future%20of%20feed-in%20tariff%20still%20uncertain/

"The second point, which was very forcefully put, was that solar farms on green field sites were not part of the original tariff design, and they are not part of the current plan. About solar farms Greg Barker said: “I need to be clear. If there is an undue increase in their numbers, and it looks like they are going to take a disproportionate amount of the funding then I will intervene. I hope this won’t be necessary.”

Also see this:

http://www.yougen.co.uk/blog-entry/1587/Solar%20PV%20farms%20-%20are%20they%20good%20for%20the%20UK%273F/

"Other panellists had varying views on the issue. Scottish and Southern chief executive, Ian Marchant said that solar PV in the UK makes sense in the built environment, but that it doesn't make sense to use it in place of a scarce resource such as land. "

I find this very interesting as well:

"He (energy minister Greg Barker) made a clear statement that the feed-in tariff scheme has a finite and predetermined budget."

Nang

Not much energy gen going on first thing this morning, with 1 and a 1/2 inchs of snow on the panels.

But then the sun came out, the snow melted, it then slid off the panels and gave them all a good clean.

EddyB

Had a call the other day from the "HomeSun" company. They rang to congratulate me and say they had decided our house is suitable for their free panels scheme. So in a couple of weeks they're sending round "a surveyor" from another company, EAGA, and this surveyor will check whether the company wishes to proceed with installing the panels here, if we agree.

So I read online that one should never use a company that is not certificated with https://www.microgenerationcertification.org, so I check the lists on their website and find that HomeSun ain't listed!

So it would be wise not to let them proceed. On the other hand, Martin and others have referred to them.

At the same time, another company, ISIS, has sent me an email, also to congratulate me on my roof being suitable for their free panel scheme. However, the way they say they ARE GOING to proceed is that they are going to post me a written contract WHICH I MUST SIGN! And then, they say, an MCS-certificated installer will come round to check whether the property is suitable.

So there are two companies keen on lining my roof with panels, and I, quite frankly, smell a rat.

Any, or all, advice gratefully received!

energysavingexp

EddyB wrote: »

Had a call the other day from the "HomeSun" company. They rang to congratulate me and say they had decided our house is suitable for their free panels scheme. So in a couple of weeks they're sending round "a surveyor" from another company, EAGA, and this surveyor will check whether the company wishes to proceed with installing the panels here, if we agree.

So I read online that one should never use a company that is not certificated with www.microgenerationcertification.org, so I check the lists on their website and find that HomeSun ain't listed!

So it would be wise not to let them proceed. On the other hand, Martin and others have referred to them.

At the same time, another company, ISIS, has sent me an email, also to congratulate me on my roof being suitable for their free panel scheme. However, the way they say they ARE GOING to proceed is that they are going to post me a written contract WHICH I MUST SIGN! And then, they say, an MCS-certificated installer will come round to check whether the property is suitable.

So there are two companies keen on lining my roof with panels, and I, quite frankly, smell a rat.

Any, or all, advice gratefully received!

Homesun will probably use a sub contractor that is certified
otherwise they would not be able to claim the FIT.

i have recieved the contract from isis.
its 20 pages long and you need to read all of it.

EddyB

energysavingexp wrote: »

Homesun will probably use a sub contractor that is certified
otherwise they would not be able to claim the FIT.

i have recieved the contract from isis.
its 20 pages long and you need to read all of it.

20 pages long! Are you going to sign, do you think?

Have read the first 11 pages of this thread and really feel I ought to read the remaining 64 before making a decision.

But so far the things that people have said and which are concerning us are:

- companies wouldn't be so eager to panel our roof if for free THEY weren't going to benefit substantially, which means they'll be getting more from the electricity generated than us. This stands to reason as we use little power during the hours of daylight.

- the technology is evolving and we could be stuck with big thick panels on our roof for 25 years when in a few years' time panels could be half the length and breadth and half the thickness, if not less.

- we don't expect to be living here in 25 years' time, so the panels could lessen the saleability of our house. Some buyers might baulk at the idea of having to enter into an arrangement with a third-party (the panel suppliers) if/when they buy from the house from us. Buyers like simplicity.

- the panels will most certainly not enhance the attractiveness of the appearance of our house from the road

- today one of the water-pipes in our attic was frozen, due to the current cold snap. But by 2pm the sun had heated up the attic and the water was flowing freely again. If we cover the roof with panels, the sun wouldn't be able to heat up the attic in this way and the frozen pipe would not have thawed.

- we have a few solar panels already on an outhouse, which we use for charging up batteries and going "off-grid" for five or six hours every few days in the evening. We've had to replace two costly inverters already. They do a lot of work and they die. Even if the panel company takes responsibility for replacing such equipment, you still have the drama of a breakdown every so often. And where would this equipment go? Up in the attic? The last thing I want is someone treading around up there every so often, disturbing the insulation and possibly putting a foot through a ceiling because of misjudging where the beams llie beneath all the insulation fibre.

energysavingexp

Myenergystation will fit the equipment out side in a box but most of them fit it in the loft.
i will go with myenergystation because they will fit a 4.44kw system.
isis will only fit a 3.5kw system

JenR8

EddyB wrote: »

Had a call the other day from the "HomeSun" company. They rang to congratulate me and say they had decided our house is suitable for their free panels scheme. So in a couple of weeks they're sending round "a surveyor" from another company, EAGA, and this surveyor will check whether the company wishes to proceed with installing the panels here, if we agree.

QUOTE]

Did they actually say you'd get 'free solar'? they told us we 'probably would'. Their rep took £100 when he visited 'to secure the survey'. They later offered us the £500 system whcih we didn't want, and it was hard to get the money back. So just be aware of this, and don't part with any money! (Unless of course you want to!)

JenR8

energysavingexp wrote: »

Myenergystation will fit the equipment out side in a box but most of them fit it in the loft.
i will go with myenergystation because they will fit a 4.44kw system.
isis will only fit a 3.5kw system

OK Mr X.Pert. Why have you chosen them, apart from size?

Will they remove and replace at their cost to allow any roof repairs?

Have you perused a contract?

Any chance of buying the panels at a later date?

Would love to know.

Still looking,
Jen

stevevp

I have just rejected SKY's offer to install free solar panels. They said I would make about £180 to £200 per year in savings if I signed up with them for 25 years under the government scheme.

I showed the SKY leasing agreement for the roof space to my solicitor and he advised me not to sign it for the following reasons.

1. It may prove to be a sales inhibitor when I go to sell the house in 7 to 10 years time. Because the property is tied in for 25 years and by this time solar solutions would be a lot cheaper (he thinks) and a new buyer may well want to install their own solution and get a better return on their money rather than stick with the one I have signed up to. To do this they would have to buy themselves out of the SKY deal which would be expensive. Or I would have to do it. Very expensive.

2. There were some potential pit falls in the leasing agreement which were too much in favour of SKY in his opinion.

i.e. If there were major problems with the roof that I had to fix, if the work wasn't completed within 6 weeks I would have pay SKY compensation if the the panels were inactive and they weren't able to claim back their rebates from the government.

At the moment any electricity produced has to be used immediately or fed back into the national grid. What happens with future developments? Say the development of storage technology, do I get this upgraded for nothing or do I have to pay? This is not explained.

Because of these reasons/advice I decided not to go ahead. I am now looking into buying my own Solar Panels.

Steve