Free solar panel discussion

zeupater

JasonLo wrote: »

I'm new to this forum but could not help noticing the heated debate around the claimed savings in this post from an (apparent) HomeSun employee.

Calculating electricity savings should be straightforward enough and does not need to rely on extrapolating one weeks data. For a 3.5 kWp system in the Isle of Wight (which is one of the best places in the UK for solar PV generation), assuming a south facing, unshaded location and a pitch of about 35 degrees, the annual output would be around 3290 kWh. Don't take my word for this but look it up on the PVGIS website which is well respected in the industry.

Based on this, HomeSun, as owners of the system will receive:

(3290 x 41.3p) + (1645 x 3p) = 1358.77 + 49.35 = £1408 p.a

This assumes the system is a retrofit and that 50% of the power is exported to the grid.

For the Homeowner the saving depends on their usage pattern and current electricity tariff but assuming they use 50% of the generated power and currently pay 12p per KWh, their annual saving is £163. Obviously if they are able to use all the electricity as it is produced, this will double to £326.

The £226 figure is not wildly innacurate and the system might outperform the PVGIS data SLIGHTLY but not by more than about 10% in my view. The method of arriving at the number in the post (£4.35 x 52) is nonsense.

On the wider issue of whether the Free Solar scheme is good or bad, it is a matter of circumstances. The 3.5 kWp system in the Isle of Wight would have cost about £14k (+/- £1-2k) had the homeowner purchased it himself (a lot less for HomeSun). The £1408 + £163 would represent a return of 11% which would be tax free and index linked to the RPI. This is generally the best option if you have the money. If you don't have the money but can borrow it, this is you next best option.

However, if you don't have the capital nor the ability or inclination to borrow it, the free system gives you a reduction in your electricity bills at no cost to yourself so for some it is worth doing. As for paying Homesun to install a sub-optimal system, I would suggest this is not worth considering although I've not studied the terms!

Hi JasonLo

Welcome to the forum .....

I generally agree with the sentiment of the post, the repayments period and return for a purchased system is probably open to debate, depending on whether you would compare the investment against holding capital and earning a return etc ... there is a thread on the green & ethical forum where this has been discussed in detail.

Regarding the £226 not being wildly inaccurate ... that seems to be the main sticking point here as it is the only form of financial return from 'rent-a-roof' systems .... many who are looking at, or have looked at, systems are told and actually believe that they can save this kind of amount per year based on the 50%/50% usage/export split ...... your calculation seems to suggest that £163 is possible on this basis, however, owners of systems continually point out that this split is vary hard to achieve on systems sized around the 2kWp and almost impossible on systems around 4kWp ......

When looking at my system I continually told the installation companies to base the savings calculation on my actual usage of around 2600kWh/year, but the quotation always came back with standard SAP assumptions ..... because that's the way the system works ...... There is a point at which the electricity generated and used 'in house' is calculated as being greater than my total electricity usage, a totally rediculous situation as it tends to get dark for a considerable proportion of the year and there is a massive imbalance in seasonal generation resulting in a massive surplus during the summer months.

It would be more realistic for anyone to base their aspirations of usage of self generated power to around (or below) £100, almost as a universal sum, regardless of system size ..... if they then achieve this saving they will not be disappointed, if they better this saving they will be either working very hard to do so, or wasting power needlessly in order to prove a point....

HTH
Z

Cardew

JasonLo wrote: »

I'm new to this forum but could not help noticing the heated debate around the claimed savings in this post from an (apparent) HomeSun employee.

Calculating electricity savings should be straightforward enough and does not need to rely on extrapolating one weeks data. For a 3.5 kWp system in the Isle of Wight (which is one of the best places in the UK for solar PV generation), assuming a south facing, unshaded location and a pitch of about 35 degrees, the annual output would be around 3290 kWh. Don't take my word for this but look it up on the PVGIS website which is well respected in the industry.

Based on this, HomeSun, as owners of the system will receive:

(3290 x 41.3p) + (1645 x 3p) = 1358.77 + 49.35 = £1408 p.a

This assumes the system is a retrofit and that 50% of the power is exported to the grid.

For the Homeowner the saving depends on their usage pattern and current electricity tariff but assuming they use 50% of the generated power and currently pay 12p per KWh, their annual saving is £163. Obviously if they are able to use all the electricity as it is produced, this will double to £326.

The £226 figure is not wildly innacurate and the system might outperform the PVGIS data SLIGHTLY but not by more than about 10% in my view. The method of arriving at the number in the post (£4.35 x 52) is nonsense.

On the wider issue of whether the Free Solar scheme is good or bad, it is a matter of circumstances. The 3.5 kWp system in the Isle of Wight would have cost about £14k (+/- £1-2k) had the homeowner purchased it himself (a lot less for HomeSun). The £1408 + £163 would represent a return of 11% which would be tax free and index linked to the RPI. This is generally the best option if you have the money. If you don't have the money but can borrow it, this is you next best option.

However, if you don't have the capital nor the ability or inclination to borrow it, the free system gives you a reduction in your electricity bills at no cost to yourself so for some it is worth doing. As for paying Homesun to install a sub-optimal system, I would suggest this is not worth considering although I've not studied the terms!

Welcome to the forum.

The debate, and questions was about their 2.4kWp systems which are mounted on roofs that are not optimum in orientation or pitch, and for which the customers pays £500 and £5 monthly.

Krish, for fairly obvious reasons!!, threw in as a distraction the larger 3.52kWp system on the IofW(which being as far South in UK as possible has the highest output)

Generally on these forums we take an average price of tier 2 electricity to be 10p/kWh as even after the last price round it is still possible to get electricity at 9p/kWh.

However I believe there is an error in your calculation and you have not used 12p/kWh but 10p/kWh. and(splitting hairs) 3,260kWh not 3,290kWh.

Nobody disputes that a free 'rent a roof' system will appeal to some people and there has been much debate in MSE on the pros and cons of such as scheme.

The main issue has been to advise potential customers of realistic savings, and the difficulty of using 50% on a largish system, and as an average across UK £100 might be realistic.

However as said above the IofW system is something of a distraction, the main issue is a 2.4kWp system in a sub-optimal site for which you pay £500 up front and £5 a month.

BrummyGit

wrote: »

Hi

Have Homesun given any information regarding what would be considered reasonable ...... I take it that the costs would involve scaffolding & lift gear, I also assume that any compensation would be based on the amount of time that you specifically prevented them from gaining access to your property, not the total lead time for them to remove & refit .... also, I take it that the calculation for the potential lost FiT has been provided and agreed at contract stage .... do you have agreed anticipated monthly generation tables to refer back to in case the need arises ??, would you assume responsibility for the insurance of the panels whilst being removed & stored ?? .... what is Homesun's guarantee on limiting the maximum level of financial exposure you have if this was necessary ...... what happens if the root cause of the roof repair is actually as a result of the panels being fitted, who decides, and what does the arbitration clause & process consist of ?? .....

I dont know the answers ..... but I am extremely interested to know what they would be, especially before making any kind of contractual commitment myself .... can anyone provide any answers ?? ..... Krish ???

Z

Hi zeupater

Sorry I took a while to respond, but some of the aggressive negativity (my comment is not targeted at any one individual) knocking around this forum made me question if I want to continue to participate. I've obviously made my decision.

I echo the comments about the way HomeSun is being challenged and share the concerns of some about the possibility of giving some of their more well meaning clients a hard time by telephone. I think the participation of as many genuine vendors as possible on this forum is a positive thing, and I want to encourage HomeSun to continue to contribute. That said, I think it is quite fair and reasonable to challenge facts we find hard to accept, but I would prefer it done in a much more amenable manner.

I would like to answer your questions as best as I can.....

I expect the "reasonable costs" for removal to be exactly that - reasonable, and I assume that scaffolding and lifting equipment mirroring the original installation would be required to remove the panels - I think that is a fair approach. I would be prepared to challenge any charge that I consider unreasonable, but would also expect them to carry out to work in a safe and professional manner. Additionally I would expect to pay similar reasonable costs if I had purchased my system and needed to engage a contractor to remove my own system for building maintenance.

There is no calculation set out for determining the lost FiTs (other than stating "lost FiTs" so if the system still generates until the day it is removed I don't see the issue) but I assume once we have a couple of years under our belt we have a good data set to work from. In the early years I accept that we would have a discussion - and again I would expect a reasonable approach based on public models. I get 3 weeks loss of generation before I am penalised, and then can only pay a maximum of 4 weeks compensation in 12 months so I am not unduly concerned that I am exposed to a huge risk.

I see no reason why I would assume insurance responsibility for the panels - the contract has a clear statement that HomeSun is responsible for insurance, and this is not limited by any statement on risks not covered.

The limit of my exposure is the reasonable cost of removal and re-installation plus 4 weeks FiTs per 12 month period.

If the damage to my home is caused by HomeSun's equipment I claim from their insurance for the cost of repair. I would expect to obtain an independent engineer's report just as I have in the past when a garage damaged my car during routine service work.

In all of the points above I expect HomeSun to act reasonably, and I intend to do the same. This is the (maybe misguided) basis for my decision to accept the contract, with a level of comfort that I have acceptable financial risk.

I too have negotiated some major contracts with major companies, and one thing I learned early on is that both parties have to benefit from any contract otherwise there is no motivation. If you get too pushy and demanding and the deal is too one-sided then the other party is likely to walk away. I have watched colleagues in the past negotiate as though their lives depended on getting one over on the other party and it has backfired many times. Often after contract signature when there is no motivation to deliver on your commitments and therefore it gets legal. This may well limit the £500 up front with £5 per month schemes, but we must also accept that HomeSun need to stay in business for 25 years to monitor and maintain those systems in optimum condition. I would prefer excellent customer service and a hassle free relationship, therefore it must be mutually beneficial.

I understand that smaller systems with a higher contribution from the home owner needs some serious consideration as to whether the home owner is any better off, but in my case I will make a single upfront payment for my 3.52KWp system which I expect to recoup in 2 years at the very worst. After that point I simply gain as much free electricity as I am able to consume for no additional costs. I like not having to stump up any of my own cash, and never trust politicians to deliver on their promises, let alone another politicians promises.

If I decide that the rent-a-roof scheme no longer suits me - eg house sale, difficultly re-mortgaging, I want the FiTs, unreasonable quote for maintenance removal, whim etc I will simply buy the system. I will pay an inflated price for it (already clearly defined) compared to shopping around, but I am taking no up-front financial risk and therefore accept that situation.

So for those people taking a larger system with little or no financial investment on a home they plan to keep in the long term, and where there is confidence in the roof condition, I fail to see where they are really going to be big losers.

I really look forward to posting real-life experiences once my system is installed, but I also look forward to continued contributions on both sides of the debate.

Cardew

BrummyGit wrote: »

That said, I think it is quite fair and reasonable to challenge facts we find hard to accept, but I would prefer it done in a much more amenable manner.

Nice post and a fair and reasoned response.

As probably the more aggressive poster on this thread, my focus has been on HomeSun. I wish that we could have a fair and reasoned discussion on HomeSun’s 2.4kWp sub-optimum system that costs £500 and £5 monthly; but Krish has made it pretty plain that he is going to avoid answering any questions on that subject.

If all the sceptics on this thread are wrong in our calculations – then why doesn’t he challenge us – or debate the issue? I am pretty sure if we were wrong he would come in ‘all guns blazing’.

Why is it that a salesman who is promoting such an IMO worthless system, is allowed to use MSE to lend the system respectability?

zeupater

BrummyGit wrote: »

Hi zeupater

Sorry I took a while to respond, but some of the aggressive negativity (my comment is not targeted at any one individual) knocking around this forum made me question if I want to continue to participate. I've obviously made my decision.

I echo the comments about the way HomeSun is being challenged and share the concerns of some about the possibility of giving some of their more well meaning clients a hard time by telephone. I think the participation of as many genuine vendors as possible on this forum is a positive thing, and I want to encourage HomeSun to continue to contribute. That said, I think it is quite fair and reasonable to challenge facts we find hard to accept, but I would prefer it done in a much more amenable manner.

I would like to answer your questions as best as I can.....

I expect the "reasonable costs" for removal to be exactly that - reasonable, and I assume that scaffolding and lifting equipment mirroring the original installation would be required to remove the panels - I think that is a fair approach. I would be prepared to challenge any charge that I consider unreasonable, but would also expect them to carry out to work in a safe and professional manner. Additionally I would expect to pay similar reasonable costs if I had purchased my system and needed to engage a contractor to remove my own system for building maintenance.

There is no calculation set out for determining the lost FiTs (other than stating "lost FiTs" so if the system still generates until the day it is removed I don't see the issue) but I assume once we have a couple of years under our belt we have a good data set to work from. In the early years I accept that we would have a discussion - and again I would expect a reasonable approach based on public models. I get 3 weeks loss of generation before I am penalised, and then can only pay a maximum of 4 weeks compensation in 12 months so I am not unduly concerned that I am exposed to a huge risk.

I see no reason why I would assume insurance responsibility for the panels - the contract has a clear statement that HomeSun is responsible for insurance, and this is not limited by any statement on risks not covered.

The limit of my exposure is the reasonable cost of removal and re-installation plus 4 weeks FiTs per 12 month period.

If the damage to my home is caused by HomeSun's equipment I claim from their insurance for the cost of repair. I would expect to obtain an independent engineer's report just as I have in the past when a garage damaged my car during routine service work.

In all of the points above I expect HomeSun to act reasonably, and I intend to do the same. This is the (maybe misguided) basis for my decision to accept the contract, with a level of comfort that I have acceptable financial risk.

I too have negotiated some major contracts with major companies, and one thing I learned early on is that both parties have to benefit from any contract otherwise there is no motivation. If you get too pushy and demanding and the deal is too one-sided then the other party is likely to walk away. I have watched colleagues in the past negotiate as though their lives depended on getting one over on the other party and it has backfired many times. Often after contract signature when there is no motivation to deliver on your commitments and therefore it gets legal. This may well limit the £500 up front with £5 per month schemes, but we must also accept that HomeSun need to stay in business for 25 years to monitor and maintain those systems in optimum condition. I would prefer excellent customer service and a hassle free relationship, therefore it must be mutually beneficial.

I understand that smaller systems with a higher contribution from the home owner needs some serious consideration as to whether the home owner is any better off, but in my case I will make a single upfront payment for my 3.52KWp system which I expect to recoup in 2 years at the very worst. After that point I simply gain as much free electricity as I am able to consume for no additional costs. I like not having to stump up any of my own cash, and never trust politicians to deliver on their promises, let alone another politicians promises.

If I decide that the rent-a-roof scheme no longer suits me - eg house sale, difficultly re-mortgaging, I want the FiTs, unreasonable quote for maintenance removal, whim etc I will simply buy the system. I will pay an inflated price for it (already clearly defined) compared to shopping around, but I am taking no up-front financial risk and therefore accept that situation.

So for those people taking a larger system with little or no financial investment on a home they plan to keep in the long term, and where there is confidence in the roof condition, I fail to see where they are really going to be big losers.

I really look forward to posting real-life experiences once my system is installed, but I also look forward to continued contributions on both sides of the debate.

Hi

I appreciate your reasoned response, and am therefore certain that you will already be aware of the cost of scaffolding a roof and providing lift gear to remove panels would likely be around £400 to £500 before looking at the labour costs involved in removal and refitting, however reasonable they might be. In the event that my system needs to be removed for roof maintenance, I would offset the cost against the FiTs which are being received in the same way that financing a replacement inverter would be handled, but without the FiT income a considerable sum would be paid without any hope of seeing any advantage whatsoever to the homeowner.

Personally, I would be very careful on the insurance of panels which were in storage whilst not on the roof ... this would be very similar to my insurance covering the property of my installer whilst they were in my garage before title to the property changed hands. I'm not saying that anything you have posted is wrong, just that I am possibly not as trusting as yourself.

I really do hope that nothing goes wrong with yours or any 'rent-a-roof' system, but as reliability is only based on MTBF you can be sure that there will eventually be failures in equipment along with requirements to maintain roofs and I would hope that the clauses in the relevant contracts are translated and enforced as you would read them, not as I would .....


Regards
Z

BrummyGit

Hi Cardew / Hi zeupater

I can only partially agree with some of the sentiments regarding HomeSun on here. Whilst I agree that a presence on here is certainly a sales and marketing tool (even if not direct), part of that for me is a demonstration of good customer service. HomeSun (and in particular Krish) has proven some worth by picking up my original post, which was a grumble about their service, and addressing my issues in a very comprehensive and courteous manner. That adds value to my experience (and yes it is therefore a valuable indirect sales tool). It would be nice however to get some factual responses to the expected returns of the various system options requested.

I agree that there is a risk of costs in the ballpark you describe for panel removal, and I have made a reasoned judgement on the likelihood of this occurring based on the condition of my current roof (and recent building work which replaced the majority of my tiles). This is certainly something that people should be aware of, however one of the checks that the survey apparently makes is to assess whether the roof is expected to have a 25 year lifespan. In the unlikely event that I face this I may well look at my situation and decide whether purchasing the system would increase my returns to cover the cost. At the same time, purchasing would increase my own risks and costs so it would need to be a balanced judgement (eg how old is the inverter)

beedydad

BrummyGit wrote: »

Hi zeupater


I echo the comments about the way HomeSun is being challenged and share the concerns of some about the possibility of giving some of their more well meaning clients a hard time by telephone. I think the participation of as many genuine vendors as possible on this forum is a positive thing, and I want to encourage HomeSun to continue to contribute. That said, I think it is quite fair and reasonable to challenge facts we find hard to accept, but I would prefer it done in a much more amenable manner.

I would like to answer your questions as best as I can.....




I too have negotiated some major contracts with major companies, and one thing I learned early on is that both parties have to benefit from any contract otherwise there is no motivation. If you get too pushy and demanding and the deal is too one-sided then the other party is likely to walk away. I have watched colleagues in the past negotiate as though their lives depended on getting one over on the other party and it has backfired many times. Often after contract signature when there is no motivation to deliver on your commitments and therefore it gets legal. This may well limit the £500 up front with £5 per month schemes, but we must also accept that HomeSun need to stay in business for 25 years to monitor and maintain those systems in optimum condition. I would prefer excellent customer service and a hassle free relationship, therefore it must be mutually beneficial.

I understand that smaller systems with a higher contribution from the home owner needs some serious consideration as to whether the home owner is any better off, but in my case I will make a single upfront payment for my 3.52KWp system which I expect to recoup in 2 years at the very worst. After that point I simply gain as much free electricity as I am able to consume for no additional costs. I like not having to stump up any of my own cash, and never trust politicians to deliver on their promises, let alone another politicians promises.

If I decide that the rent-a-roof scheme no longer suits me - eg house sale, difficultly re-mortgaging, I want the FiTs, unreasonable quote for maintenance removal, whim etc I will simply buy the system. I will pay an inflated price for it (already clearly defined) compared to shopping around, but I am taking no up-front financial risk and therefore accept that situation.

So for those people taking a larger system with little or no financial investment on a home they plan to keep in the long term, and where there is confidence in the roof condition, I fail to see where they are really going to be big losers.

I really look forward to posting real-life experiences once my system is installed, but I also look forward to continued contributions on both sides of the debate.

Brummygit - you have made some interesting points, which I will not replicate but some seem to be at the edge of the main reasons for opting for "rent a roof" but I agree that they could become important at a time if an event occurs.

However, I scratch my head to understand the point about ...."negotiating major contracts ..and both parties benefiting from any contract"!!!!

The rent a roof is a complete contradiction to this statement as clearly the benefit in pure financial terms is at least 80%+ in favour of the company and maybe 20% towards the homeowner.

They will be in pure profit within 7 years and I do appreciate that they have some service obligations in due course but that is relatively small in the whole makeup of cost analysis.

It is very worrying to see that Homesun, as as example, are taking £500 and/or £5.00 per month for the privalage of them installing a system on a roof, for which they will take the lion share of income guaranteed for 25 years + inflation proofed!

I noted that some who have these schemes have indeed called them "rent a roof" but again i scratch my head to understand which part of the deal is there a "rent a roof" because it seems you will be paying them for them using your roof - thats just madness
or they are free and there is therefore no rent!

Until, as others have made quite clear that there is evidence of the actual homeowners use of the generated power it is pure speculation as to the benefit to the homeowner.

That surely can only come as and when a number of customers have export/smart meters.

I find it very odd that not many seem to have these as yet! Why?

Maybe it is the "free" or "rent a roof" companies don't want to push there installation as it would make all the debate had here and elsewhere over argueing what is generated, used and exported very very transparent and truth may hurt!

I have stated before that until clarification is given this aspect could undrmine this part of the energy industry - it does have a part but I prefer that people are not deluded.

Regards

grahamc2003

Cardew wrote: »

Welcome to the forum.


Nobody disputes that a free 'rent a roof' system will appeal to some people and there has been much debate in MSE on the pros and cons of such as scheme.

The main issue has been to advise potential customers of realistic savings, and the difficulty of using 50% on a largish system, and as an average across UK £100 might be realistic.

Hi Cardew,

You touch upon the reasons, as yet unstated, regarding why these misnamed 'free' panel companies can charge £500 plus £5pw.

They are profit maximisers, as all companies try to be, and of course, there's nothing at all wrong with that. If the demand for 'free systrems' is large - as I expect it is - then the company response is to charge more for the product. If the consumer either makes nothing, or even loses on the deal, well, caveat emptor, they shouldn't have signed it. If there's still high demand even with a £500 charge, then the response will be to charge £1000 plus £10 pw.

It's probably not in a solar company's interest to say such a thing - hence in all probibility why Krish hasn't responded to your very reasonable question. I, like you, find Krish perfectly amenable and helpful as far as he can be, apart from his recent goof, but he's out to make a profit (like everyone else, even if it's the wage packet at the end of the week), so when faced with your question (being the return someone paying for a 'free' system will make) then his best option is to keep quiet.

But as far as informing readers of the common sense or not of paying for a 'free' system (or even getting them genuinely free in money terms) then I think that has been done, for those who want to believe the facts (many, many don't!).

I'm not sure the main issue is informing of the realistic return via the value of electricity used. While very important, and almost universally overestimated imv, I think the issue which I highlighted when I first started posting here several months ago and only recently getting publicity, is the restrictions the company places on your house land registry certificate, where they have a say in who you sell your house to (i.e. you can't sell to anyone unprepared to take on the balance of the contract). That burden obviously affects the security of a lender on the property, hence there is rising evidence of banks etc refusing mortgages on properties with a rented roof.

I just wonder how many people are actually like Brummygit, who has taken account of all the factors and decided it worthwhile (which is obviously how a decision should be made), and how many sign up for these things in almost complete ignorance of the major facts.

ryanleask

Is there such a scheme running for Scotland?

Cardew

Hi Graham,

Surely the only reason why people are prepared to pay £500 and £5 monthly for these systems is they greatly overestimate the savings they will make, an impression easily gained from the HomeSun website.

Obviously Krish will not answer the questions I posed, because to do so would be an 'own goal'. His first attempt at obfuscation was quickly exposed.

When agreeing to a 'rent a roof' scheme it is simply a case of risk versus reward. That applies to a 'free' system or the £500/£5 monthly version.

With regards the 'main issue' I tend to agree that your reservations on the legal aspects would be the major issue for myself. However that 'risk' is difficult to quantify and whilst it might deter some people, it self evidently doesn't deter the hordes who are clamouring for a 'rent a roof' system; or they simply don't appreciate there is a risk.

I have concentrated on the 'reward' aspects as that is far easier to quantify, and if the reward is shown to be paltry and well below people's expectations, they might re-consider if it is worth taking any risk.

In particular the reward for the £500/£5 monthly system is IMO derisory and indeed some people will pay out more than they save on electricity bills.