Free solar panel discussion

Cardew

Delerium wrote: »

Brummy's exactly right. With my array, im looking at an estimated profit of £31,000 over 25 years. But the generation i have is on a perfect 30 degree array south facing with no shading. And all the figures are estimates based on weather. (Before anyone says 31k is not achievable, if you take into account inflation, price rises and reinvesting income from FITS, it perfectly is)

So in summary, yeah its all down to individual circumstances. For me, its a very beneficial investment due to my location, and circumstances. For the next guy, it might not be by a long shot.

My advice is just get a survey from one or two suppliers and see what they have to say and run it by a few people here to see if its sounding reasonable (we arent qualified experts but we should be able to spot if someones taking you for a ride).

Del

This thread is entitled 'FREE solar panel discussion' i.e. it is about 'rent a roof' schemes - not buying a system and getting FITs etc.

People who rent their roof for 25 years where the 'rent' they get is whatever electricity they can use from that generated by the PV system.

Cardew

BrummyGit wrote: »

Many on here give the Solar companies a hard time for unsubstantiated claims, therefore we really ought to make sure we give the clear message that there is no simple calculation which suits everyone. I am not trying to say that my circumstances are more valid for other people - everyone must analyse their own circumstances to see what works for them.

So we should allow the companies to make whatever claims they want and not challenge their figures.

You earlier stated:

I also find the original 70% saving that was quoted difficult to accept

So you can challenge a figure, but others can't?

Some firms cleverly imply that you can use all the generated power and save £hundreds a year.

Look at the Homesun salesman that came on here promoting his systems - systems that some people actually paid £500 and £5 a month for the privilege' of letting someone have legal access to their roof for 25 years.

You will note when his bluff was called about his offer of putting us in contact with some customers - he hasn't reappeared.

IMO the size of the system often will have little bearing bearing on the amount used. It doesn't matter if a small system is generating 1kW, or a larger one 2kW, if you are only demanding 0.75kW.

It is perfectly valid, and not irresponsible, to advise that people will do well if they reduce their bill by £80 to £100 a year.(as several people and organisations have done) That doesn't rule out some who might save more, or those who will save less. At least I have given the reasoning behind my statement.

It is a lot more irresponsible for firms to imply you can use all the generated electricity and save many £hundreds a year.

Delerium_2

Cardew wrote: »

This thread is entitled 'FREE solar panel discussion' i.e. it is about 'rent a roof' schemes - not buying a system and getting FITs etc.

People who rent their roof for 25 years where the 'rent' they get is whatever electricity they can use from that generated by the PV system.

Apologies, you're absolutley right - my comments regarding self funded arrays dont apply.

AquilaJon

Cardew wrote: »

This thread is entitled 'FREE solar panel discussion' i.e. it is about 'rent a roof' schemes - not buying a system and getting FITs etc.

People who rent their roof for 25 years where the 'rent' they get is whatever electricity they can use from that generated by the PV system.

Hi I'm an an MCS PV Installer, I dont do 'rent a roof' installs but there can be some great gains without the capital expense. If you are considering 'rent a roof' schemes, firstly you should get some quotes for installing it yourself as the FITs are the main benefit of PV and these are designed to cover any loan and generate additional income. If you are not in the position to do this then 'rent a roof' is for you.

Under MCS guidlines companies have to work to set standards and calculations so not to oversell the benefits. In most cases if it is viable for a company to go to the expense of putting PV on your roof it is viable for the homeowner. Although the SAP calculations may not seem fantastic, you 'the home owner' can make considerable savings by using the system to your benefit. So putting high energy appliances on during the day like your washing machine on delayed start befor you go to work, if you have an electric shower - shower in day light (morning not evening), if you have a hot water cylinder maybe put this on a timer to pre heat water... you get the idea. By being clever about what energy you use and when you could easily save 50-75%

free_juice?

My council has a pdf on its site explaining that no planning permission is necessary in all normal situations but has the damn cheek to suggest that you pay £75 for a letter confirming it. Helps when you come to sell the house they say.

AquilaJon

free_juice? wrote: »

My council has a pdf on its site explaining that no planning permission is necessary in all normal situations but has the damn cheek to suggest that you pay £75 for a letter confirming it. Helps when you come to sell the house they say.

There is currently a big debate about councils refusing permission or as you say asking for payment, the fact is in most cases permission is not needed and a £75 letter will make no difference. However a properly installed and certified system will

BrummyGit

Cardew wrote:

So you can challenge a figure, but others can't?

Incorrect - I challenge your assertion as to the benefit people will make without detailed analysis. Just as valid as challenges to rent-a-roof suppliers.

Cardew wrote:

Some firms cleverly imply that you can use all the generated power and save £hundreds a year.

Look at the Homesun salesman that came on here promoting his systems - systems that some people actually paid £500 and £5 a month for the privilege' of letting someone have legal access to their roof for 25 years.

You will note when his bluff was called about his offer of putting us in contact with some customers - he hasn't reappeared.

I'm not disputing this - invalid claims of excess performance are just as bad as invalid claims about how poor the returns are.

Cardew wrote:

IMO the size of the system often will have little bearing bearing on the amount used. It doesn't matter if a small system is generating 1kW, or a larger one 2kW, if you are only demanding 0.75kW.

But in sub-optimal conditions you will generate a proportion of the quoted maximum, therefore the more potential you have, the more actual you have - with some caveats. Various panels give differing performance in sub-optimal conditions, and additionally different inverters have different start-up thresholds, operating efficiency and standby power requirements.

In my case I looked at the actual components that would be supplied by HomeSun - Zen CP 220wp panels with a Fronius IG TL inverter. These are at the better end of the market for performance and I expect that I get more electricity in low light conditions (mornings and evenings) than
someone with lower end equipment in identical circumstances.

Until supply outstrips demand in the home, there is a big difference between system capacities and actual performances - just as location and orientation are also important. Therefore consumption patterns are also relevant.

Cardew wrote:

It is perfectly valid, and not irresponsible, to advise that people will do well if they reduce their bill by £80 to £100 a year.(as several people and organisations have done) That doesn't rule out some who might save more, or those who will save less. At least I have given the reasoning behind my statement.

It is a lot more irresponsible for firms to imply you can use all the generated electricity and save many £hundreds a year.

I think that incorrect information or assumption is wrong - in either case. Therefore I would simply prefer to see statements which advise people that there are lots of variables and therefore they should look carefully at their own circumstances.

I would suggest that trying to put people off before they do their own maths is just as irresponsible. I agree that there is a lot of exaggeration
about potential savings, and for many the benefits are minimal. But in some cases it is a viable proposition which can offer savings with no financial outlay.

beedydad

BrummyGit wrote: »

My point was essentially that there are so many variables to consider that I think it is irresponsible to tell anyone that they could make in the region of £80 to £100 savings - as you say - for some it may accurate, but it may be more or less depending on individual circumstances.

You give no indication of the size of system for which your figures are valid, and indeed your wording "If you rent panels, the bottom line is you will do well to save £80 to £100 per year off your electricity bill." points to them only being valid for rent-a-roof. Surely the electricity savings are the same no matter what method of finance is chosen as the physical systems are the same. It's the FiTs and financing options that change the returns, but again I feel that if we are happy to list all the negatives of rent-a-roof, we should always point out the additional risks with other finance options (eg changes in interest rates, retrospective changes to the FiT scheme, maintenance costs, insurance costs, loss of access to savings etc).

Then of course there are the fees some people have agreed to pay - so from my rent-a-roof supplier I have a 3.52 kwp system which costs me nothing each month, but others with the same company have 2.4 or 2.6 kwp systems costing them a monthly fee. This totally changes the calculations once again.

Many on here give the Solar companies a hard time for unsubstantiated claims, therefore we really ought to make sure we give the clear message that there is no simple calculation which suits everyone. I am not trying to say that my circumstances are more valid for other people - everyone must analyse their own circumstances to see what works for them.

Brummygit - I appreciate that you have commited to the "free" scheme or "rent a roof" and have to pull you up on the definitions, which have been covered mnay times before way back on this thread.

By definition (a) your solar PV is not "free" as you indicated you paid a lump sum - was it the £500? and (b) it is NOT a "rent a roof", which is a phrase commonly applied as you are NOT getting a "rent" (but have paid over to them a sum) albeit you are aware that some people are paying a monthly figure over to the installer - so who is the "renter"?
Well intentioned bloggers are just pointing out issues to folk where they may be "blind" to the facts put in front of them as they do not wish to see the truth having believed the informatin put before them by so called well meaning or rather self interested parties, ie the installation companies selling their products - whom anyone would/should know that they are not going to state that there products or proposition is not at all good!

Regards

John_Pierpoint

The biggest problem that the salesmen skate over is the "annuity" aspect of the "investment".
Having panels on the roof is like mining sunshine to get electricity. The availability of the minerals and the electricity will not last for ever, so it is NOT the same as (say) buying shares in Tesco and getting a dividend hopefully index linked and lasting for ever.
The owner of the panels has to maintain them and save up to replace them.
The system in the UK uses ONE inverter to turn the sunshine electricity into mains electricity - this is likely to last 10 - 15 years.
The panels are said to be good for 20 - 30 years BUT one inverter handles the output from all the panels.
When the inverter or just one of the panels goes phut, in say 15 years time, how easy will it be to get someone to install a matching replacemen? Especially so for the panel, it would have to be electrically compatible and fit exactly the space and appearance of the duff panel! (unless you want to live in a house with a "piebald" roof.

(I suppose one could shuffle the panels up a bit and use a smaller inverter).

Equaliser123

free_juice? wrote: »

My council has a pdf on its site explaining that no planning permission is necessary in all normal situations but has the damn cheek to suggest that you pay £75 for a letter confirming it. Helps when you come to sell the house they say.

Worth printing a copy of the pdf!