Free solar panel discussion

Delerium_2

grahamc2003 wrote: »

It's worthless in the sense that if yopu have £x of resources with which you want to generate electricity, there are many more methods which generate more (much more, typically 15 or 16 times more) for that £x than solar.

Remember were talking about 'free' solar panels here so its not worthless as there's no outlay.

D

grahamc2003

BrummyGit wrote: »

Hi Cardew

This helps illustrate why I see "rent-a-roof" as beneficial for me. I don't currently have the spare cash which I am prepared to put out of reach for at least 10 years on a gamble. The odds may well be good, but I don't wish to make that commitment at my current stage in my life.



In addition I see some other risks associated with Solar PV systems

1. Unexpected maintenance requirements
2. Unexpected downturn in output (eg change in weather patterns. Volcano anyone?)
3. development locally causing a shadow

.

You've missed the largest risk from my pov - the single one which would make me decide not to go near a 'free' system, and that is the risk these things will go out of favour at some stage over the next 25 years.

You appear to be risk averse, and yet you are effectively gambling with your largest asset - your house. When you come to sell, you have to find someone to take on the balance of your contract (or buy it out at punitive rates) - if they are out of favour (old technology, inability to develop roof space, or a multitude of other possible causes) then your largest asset may have to take a price hit to sell. I'm not saying it will, I'm saying that is a risk you are taking, and a risk you seem to discount or not even know about giving your 'risk list').

grahamc2003

Delerium wrote: »

Remember were talking about 'free' solar panels here so its not worthless as there's no outlay.

D

?

But the panel owner has an outlay. Each electriciry customer has an outlay (albeit compulsary) to pay the owner his fit.

If you wantr to see the total effects of these things, then you can't just see the effect on one party - you have to get the overall picture of the effect on society. And the effect is society pays about 16 times more for that electricity than we need to.

It's like going to a pub and being forced to pay £48 for a pint, when you know a pint is normally available for £3.

Nang

digitaltoast wrote: »

Because that's not why Dinorwig was built.

It was built primarily for grid frequency support in the event of a loss of a major generator – specifically Sizewell B.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station


Bang goes that idea. Next?

The point is energy can be stored and used at peak demand, its nothing new.

digitaltoast wrote: »

What?! That doesn't even make sense!
"Paying them back more money later"? What does that even mean?

It does make sense. The government don't have the outlay to invest in compulsory green infrastructure, so they get the public to invest with the offer of paying dividends later.

digitaltoast wrote: »

Can you tell me how all of this PV will make any difference to the amount of fossil fuels burned? How many few power stations will be needed at 5pm on a winter's evening? Answer: none.

True-ish, looking at the short term picture. But it could supply loads of power for all the office air conditioning used every summer, and if you had and electric car you could charge it up in the office car park with suitable basic infrastructure. Imagine how much cash you would save on diesel / petrol. Imagine how much diesel /petrol could be saved.

Delerium_2

grahamc2003 wrote: »

?

But the panel owner has an outlay. Each electriciry customer has an outlay (albeit compulsary) to pay the owner his fit.

If you wantr to see the total effects of these things, then you can't just see the effect on one party - you have to get the overall picture of the effect on society. And the effect is society pays about 16 times more for that electricity than we need to.

It's like going to a pub and being forced to pay £48 for a pint, when you know a pint is normally available for £3.

I dont want to see the total effects of these things because thats not what this thread is about. We cannot influence the government incentives so its futile to dwell on this. Also the outlay is done by companies such as british gas who have already calculated that they can make money from rent a roof.

So what are you telling me, get a free PV array from british gas and everyone pays via gas+electricity price rises.... ok that makes sense. So would it also therefore be worth us getting in on the free eletricity given we're going to pay for it anyway?

D

Denzelpuppy

My mortgage company GE Money, will not give permission for me to have the panels installed. PV Solar have approved my application for Free Panels, i notified GE Money but they have said No but will allow if i get PV Solar to insert a break clause in the 25 year lease agreement, have a structural engiuneer report appointed by them and not PV Solars Structural Engineer' report and also approval from my buildings insurer.

Just wandering if anyone else is experiencing the same or similar problems with their mortgage lenders?

PV Solar say it's because mortgage Lenders are trying to get a share of the Feed in Tarrif, to make up for lost interest due to the low rates at the moment, so are making it as difficult as possible for people to get free panels. DAft thing is GE Parent company actually make the panels ansd recommend people fit them, so figure that one. When i spoke to GE and filed an official complaint , they reckon they might not ba able to sell the house if they forclosed on me, someone might want to buy it and not want free electricity apparantly, what planet do these people live on???

digitaltoast

A small percentage of the population may be able to rent their roof for 25 years to, for example, British Gas.

While the systems are quoted as being "worth £12,000", having worked in the industry, I suspect the system will actually cost BG under £4,000.

British Gas get £800 per year, guaranteed. The lucky few get to save maybe as much as £100 per year, assuming their electricity usage manages to match the sun.

Over the £25 years, the lucky few may save £2,500 in exchange for whoring their roof out.

British Gas get £800 * £25 = £20,000 - £4,000 = £16,000.

EVERYONE else pays greatly increased electricity bills. Yes, that includes Ada next door, on her pension, paying £100 more a year on her electricity bills to subsidise this lunacy.

Who do YOU think are the winners and losers here?

Nang wrote: »

The government don't have the outlay to invest in compulsory green infrastructure, so they get the public to invest with the offer of paying dividends later.

You make it all sound so benign. "they get the public to invest", as if there's a choice!

Do you think the public would CHOOSE to invest in THE MOST INEFFICIENT WAY OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY THERE IS?. How many times does it need to be said?

And again, I ask, what "dividends"? There are no "dividends" for anyone except a few lucky houseowners with the right roofs and the few installation companies that survive without going bust.
Incidentally, note the word "owner". Not rent, own. Not people living in flats. Not people living in shared or sheltered accommodation.

Only a handful of people on this forum will be winners. All the rest of us losers. How can you be so positive about that?

AquilaJon

digitaltoast wrote: »

Solar micro-PV is one of the world's most inefficient methods of generating non-storable electricity at precisely the wrong time to meet demand, which will take no generating capacity offline for which a select rich few with large south-facing roofs are subsidised to the tune of 3x retail price by usually poorer people who don't fit the bill.

At mid-day, the time of maximum sun, the load is around 50gigawatts. At 6pm, the load is around 53gigawatts.
Of which not one single solitary watt will be provided by solar PV.

Can you explain why, if it's so good, it needs to be subsidised to the tune of ... what, 8* more than standard generation?

Maybe it's to get manufacturing going to lower prices



As for "doing the sums", how about these?

Against micro-PV, there's George Monbiot, countless failed studies, the highly acclaimed book "Without Hot Air" and hence physics mathematics and economics,, the experience of my father and his first in engineering from Imperial College and the experience of the German government who have basically given up on the hugely expensive failed experiment.

It's not green, it's not economical, it's not practical in most parts of the UK, so perhaps you can explain more about why you think this is so "brilliant"?

Well What can I say?? The worlds fosil fuels are running out and renewable technologies are here to stay to protect the future for our children and generations to come. You sound like a very selfish and narrow minded individual and if you are so concerned about paying an extra £0.09 per kWh then i suggest you spend more time looking for a better paid job than !!!!!ing on this site!

Nang

digitaltoast wrote: »

Do you think the public would CHOOSE to invest in THE MOST INEFFICIENT WAY OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY THERE IS?. How many times does it need to be said?

But there already are investing, these things are going up on houses all over the place.

There are folk on this site who have green aspirations and now have the opportunity to see them through, and are doing so either by the free system or by paying for them themselves. They come here for advice, or to float ideas about.

If you feel so strongly about this, why dont you take action. How about starting a group called "People Against FITS" ,March on London and Start a petition.

Alternatively you could continue to brow beat folk on a web forum intended for a discussions about generating free electricity.

free_juice?

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Worth printing a copy of the pdf!

I hid a copy on my website. It's not linked so tack images/installation/planning_guidelines.pdf on the back end of the link below to see it. (Half a meg)

I sent a notice of my intention to go PV. Planning did not reply but Building Control asked a few questions, then said they didn't care.