Free solar panel discussion

zeupater

Delerium wrote: »

Wouldn't it be more accurate to use 2009 figures given global warming means solar radiation is on the increase?

Hi

'Global warming', if it exists and whichever side of the debate you sit, is supposedly not due to increased insolation but due to thermal absorption and retenton quatities of the atmosphere. It can be warm & cloudy, or cold and sunny or, ........

HTH
Z

planning_officer

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.

It won't just be for a 'letter' from the Council - that's a national fee for a Lawful Development Certificate - many solicitors or buyers of houses insist that one is provided to prove that express planning permission was not required for the development, so having one can sometimes prevent a two month delay in selling a house, or worse still, losing a potential buyer!

Only a Lawful Development Certificate will confirm that a planning application was not required - an informal letter from the Council doesn't hold the same weight as it's just an informal opinion of an officer.

Delerium_2

BrummyGit wrote: »

My gripe is that on this thread there are a number of contributors who simply want to bash "free solar" offerings and put others off. I prefer a balanced approach which encourages people to make an assessment of their own circumstances. They cannot simply tell someone that they will only save £80-£100 per year in electricity without analysis behind. There are so many variables involved that it MUST be an individual decision. I'm happy to go into my own reasons for choosing the option I did, but really my point is that "free solar" does work for some people, solar funded by other means works for others, but Solar just doesn't work for some people at all - it needs analysis in each case and an informed decision.

You're absolutley right mate. What else is true is that the majority of the population of the UK dont even know about how solar works and think that its still just something 'for the rich'. Hopefully some of this thread might start spreading some info around the population that there are affordable technologies out there which can save money.

Before my father passed away last year, he was looking to purchase an array for his house and put it in trust for myself and my brother thus avoiding a bit of inheritance tax - fantastic idea. Sadly life had other ideas.

Del

Gizmosmum_2

Delerium wrote: »

Wouldn't it be more accurate to use 2009 figures given global warming means solar radiation is on the increase?

I'm no scientist so it would be wrong to pass an opinion on the radiation issue but given that MCS ask for SAP 2005 calcs (rightly or wrongly) then all installers should be using SAP 2005 to be on a level playing field. I know they don't and I fully understand why they don't but it's difficult for a customer to understand the difference between one installer's array that generates x kwh under SAP 2005 and another installer's array that generates something completely different with the same modules and inverters but using SAP 2009.




Thats just an additional benefit surley, you're generating the electricity so its a use it or lose it scenario. With clever use, you can use a fair chunk of what you generate. Sure there's the obvious things like timing washing, dishes, dryers etc but im sure there's other things that you can time during the day too. Whether you can use all that you generate though is definitley up for argument

Del

I bought pv for the investment from the FiT and the hope that I'd save maybe £100 of my electric bill. I work from home so use everything I can during the day and I'm off the gas grid but the reality is that I'm unlikely to use 1500kwh from the solar generation just because the useage and generation are mismatched. I'm more than happy with that - the Fit will almost cover my oil and residual electric bills and that was my original aim.

digitaltoast

Delerium wrote: »

I'm confused, are you saying that solar PV is not worth it because installing it would be beneficial to you but other people would get price increases? In all honesty mate, thats not my problem. This thread is talking about how much the individual can make, not how much it costs others.

But 90% of people on this forum will LOSE from this scheme. OK, let me put it another way.
Bear with me on this, it's long but should get the point across.

I work in the next town.

I could cycle, but it's 10 miles each way on a main road, and the weather sucks.

I could get the train with a short walk at either end, but it's ridiculously expensive at peak times and jammed shoulder to shoulder.

Instead, I drive. I know a back road which is quiet, and my old car does about 35mpg.

I'd like to be greener. I know it's not sustainable to live the way I do. So:

I could buy an Ecomotive or a Bluemotion which does 80mpg. It'd cost me a couple of grand more than a regular petrol car, but in return, I'd get zero road tax and effectively be paying the equivalent of 60p/litre for diesel in return for chucking out emissions half that of normal cars. Over the time I intend to keep it, fuel savings would more than cover the extra outlay and zero tax and zero London Congestion Charge is a bonus.

(That's the equivalent of a subsidy to insulate a poorly insulated house. Cheap, quick, long-lasted, incredibly efficient, using current technology made very efficient, and widely available cheap materials.)

Everyone can and will benefit.

But, like, it's a diesel engine, man. Like, internal combustion, dude!

OR

The government could subsidise an improved transport network. More people sharing transport, fewer vehicles on the road.
Sure, it'll cost a bit of tax, but maybe we could stop subsidising India, China and Russia with UK aid, to fund it?
Everyone's a winner!

OR

A chauffer will come and pick me up at 8am every day in a Lexus hybrid. It'll do less miles per gallon than my current car, but, dude, it's like, hybrid and cool!
Sure, it still uses an internal combustion engine and is less efficient than my little old rustbucket, but it, like, LOOKS green, dude!
My journey to work will be along a private section of road, reserved just for me.
All this will be FREE for me. In fact, I can set off for work half an hour later as I can use the online facilities to work from the comfort of my leather seats.
In return, all I have to do is give up my parking space on my drive.

Oh, sorry, people in terrace houses, this offer isn't available to you poor people without drives.

Like my neighbour, for example.
He has almost the same type of journey choices as me, in the other direction (otherwise I'd offer him a lift).

He'd love a journey in a chauffeur driven Lexus to work. Except, he's in the wrong type of house without a driveway.
He also can't get a loan for a new super-efficient zero-tax car, and fuel prices and parking mean driving is becoming stupidly expensive
So, he's got no choice but to take the train.

He asked me the other day who pays for that shiny car in the drive and the peak-capped driver every day?

"Simple!" I told him. "You know train and bus tickets went up 15% last week? That goes to pay for all the Lexuses (Lexii?) sitting in driveways you see around town.
It's a fantastic idea - by getting the train and bus travellers to pay huge companies a subsidy to chauffeur me round in an inefficient luxury car, the hope is that one day by getting lots of these cars on the road, the electrical part of the car will become cheaper because there's lots of them being made, even though other schemes has shown that's not the case, and it's not environmentally effective at all."

His face reddened a bit. "But that's madness! So you're saying I'm being forced to pay even higher public transport prices to subsidise you, just because you are lucky enough to have a driveway?".

How could he not see what a good deal this was? "But it's a Lexus! It's got the word Hybrid in it. Hybrid is good! Stop trying to work it out mathematically and scientifically! Of course it won't work if you THINK about it! Calm down, here, have one of these pills containing nothing but sugar. It's called Homeopathy. Although there's absolutely no evidence that works either, the government also spend £4 million a year of your money on that, too. There. See how much easier it is on your brain when you stop thinking about stuff and wanting silly things like "facts"?"

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is solar PV feed in tariffs in a nutshell.
Makes perfect sense, eh?

Gizmosmum_2

I do get a bit upset when people talk about those installing pv as "rich".

I know it's all relative but I've worked my socks off for nearly 30 years and instead of drinking, bingo-ing and eating what I've earned I've saved. I'm now penalised because I have some savings by extremely low interest rates and my thrift of the last few years is allowing me to purchase my eco-bling. I'm not rich, I earn a reasonable living but still can't afford to eat out, go to the cinema or the pub. I chose to spend my money the way I did, I'm not complaining, but I don't actually see many "rich" people installing where I live.

Cardew

Delerium wrote: »

Also just to let you know, i dont live in a mansion, i live in a semi-detached house with a garage and my array stands to tripple my investment over 25 years. The figures are verified based on industry averages and calculated by me (im an accountant). So no, its not just the rich that benefit.

There are other threads in the 'green' forum on payback.

With respect, you have 'verified' nothing, and based your 'calculations' on a number of unknown factors, which you have estimated, to arrive at your conclusion!

Those of us with endowment insurance policies(taken out in the good old days of tax relief on premiums) and pension funds do not have much confidence in 'Industry averages' so beloved of accountants!

You don't know:

1. Inflation rates over the next 25 years.
2. Fuel inflation rates over the next 25 years
3. Interest rates over the next 25 years.
4. what you will spend on repairs over the next 25 years - including to roof.
5. Possible Government intervention to modify payment of FITs over the next 25 years. If Euroland can cut subsidies to for existing installations - so can UK.

Also as an accountant you will be familiar with annuities - a far better way to look at an 'investment' in solar PV panels.

The above is not to be taken that I don't believe solar PV will be a good long term investment. However to baldly state you have verified you will triple your investment smacks of chickens/eggs/hatching;)

However as this is the 'rent a roof' thread, perhaps you would like to expound on your theories in other threads.

Cardew

Gizmosmum wrote: »

I do get a bit upset when people talk about those installing pv as "rich".

I know it's all relative but I've worked my socks off for nearly 30 years and instead of drinking, bingo-ing and eating what I've earned I've saved. I'm now penalised because I have some savings by extremely low interest rates and my thrift of the last few years is allowing me to purchase my eco-bling. I'm not rich, I earn a reasonable living but still can't afford to eat out, go to the cinema or the pub. I chose to spend my money the way I did, I'm not complaining, but I don't actually see many "rich" people installing where I live.

Come on Gizmosmum, you know the point that is being made.

1. Solar generation is just about the least efficient method of electricity generation known to man.

2. It is finacially attractive to some people simply because of the huge subsidies.

3. Whilst you don't have to be 'rich' to install solar PV, you must be a homeowner and have the ability to raise £12,000 to £18000.

4. Those huge subsidies are paid for by other electricity consumers, many of whom:
a. Don't own a property but rent.
b. Live in flats
c. Have a house with an unsuitable roof - orientation, shaded, pitch, roof structure etc.

5. Even the very poorest members of society are having to pay toward that subsidy which goes to you 'rich;)' people!! and even worse to the venture capitalists funding the rent a roof companies.

6. Surely nobody has ever criticised anyone for buying PV panels and taking advantage of the 'system'; that criticism is directed at the Government for allowing such stupidity.

zeupater

BrummyGit wrote: »

And this is the key point I've been trying to make - for some it works, for others it doesn't. It's down to many factors (consumption profile, system output, willingness to modify your habits, location, orientation etc etc etc). There are too many factors for a "one size fits all" set of answers to people considering their options.

Hi BrummyGit

I agree, there's no one size fits all saving, however, there is a figure which can be considered as a typical saving.

Like your situation, our house is occupied throughout the day, currently we are drawing 140W and when the fridge & freezer both cut in the load temporarily increases by another 200W or so ....but my baseload isn't a continuous 340W and therefore the saving from supplying this from my pv array isn't 0.340x24x365x0.1x.33 (~£100) (your logic) as my TV, fridge,freezer isn't consuming at this rate all of the time .... I turn my TV off and I'm now generating about 100 times what the household requirement is, I turn it on again and I am generating 20x the consumption .... a cloud just came across the sun and we're now closer to 4x consumption .... looking out of the window it looks like it's not going to be sunny again for a while, so I'll not wait, I'll boil the kettle to make a coffee and use 100% of generation supported by importing around 2kW for a while, but this 100% peak usage for a few minutes will make little difference across the total generation for today, whilst the imported energy at 3x what I'm generating will still add to my bill.

It's complicated but however you look at it, if anyone can save considerably over £100/year they are doing very well .... or their logic needs to be reviewed

HTH
Z

Gizmosmum_2

I know, I know, but I get a bit cheesed off when I subsidise others through my tax who choose to spend their benefit on booze, fags and bingo and then people perceive me as rich cos I choose to spend on my own type of bling

Rightly or wrongly I take a slightly broader perspective than the green one (probably because it doesn't quite stand up on it's own) in my area I've seen quite a few installers setting up their own businesses, roofers have got more work, scaffolders have more work, Sharp is employing 1100 staff in Wrexham (although some muppet told me they were all Japanese the other day :rotfl:) it's about the only positive news at the minute and while it's not perfect it's no more controversial than many other "flavour of the month" government projects. In January Sharp had 58% of the solar pv market in the UK and someone posting on another thread is getting prices down to £12,500 for 3.9kwp. None of that would have happened without the Fit.