Free solar panel discussion

zeupater

PeterZ wrote: »

...... With the price of oil ever increasing the demand for electricity will start to increase as transportation and heating switch over to electric.

Hi

One of the issues with that is the current heavy reliance on natural gas and oil to fire a good proportion of the electricity generation.

A secondary issue is directly related to the price of oil, that being the size of the economical reserves. As the price increases the exploration & production companies become more interested in smaller fields and higher cost extraction. For example, originally, during the early/mid 1970s the North Sea production was to have peaked by the early 80's with reserves depleted by the 90's ... then there was the 1973/74 oil crisis which changed the economics of production, followed by the 1979/80 crisis caused by revolution in Iran which changed the economics again. Adjusting for inflation, the cost of oil isn't that different now than it was in 1979/80.

I agree that hydrocarbon fuel reserves are reducing and this will seriously increase the cost of energy, however, so will subsidising uneconomical technologies. There really needs to be a measured change from a carbon intensive energy strategy to a low carbon one taking account of which technologies require the lowest subsidies first whilst also ensuring that the energy providers do not take advantage of the situation, as they currently do ..... but that's for another thread.

Bringing this thread back to the original subject now, what are your thoughts on free solar/'rent-a-roof' schemes considering both the low energy yields and the extremely high returns to the companies which operate them ?

HTH
Z

Equaliser123

zeupater wrote: »

Bringing this thread back to the original subject now, what are your thoughts on free solar/'rent-a-roof' schemes considering both the low energy yields and the extremely high returns to the companies which operate them ?

HTH
Z

Great for the company.

Almost worthless for the householder and potentially dangerous in terms of encumbering the property with a lease.

Negligible effect for the environment.

PeterZ_2

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

One of the issues with that is the current heavy reliance on natural gas and oil to fire a good proportion of the electricity generation.

A secondary issue is directly related to the price of oil, that being the size of the economical reserves. As the price increases the exploration & production companies become more interested in smaller fields and higher cost extraction. For example, originally, during the early/mid 1970s the North Sea production was to have peaked by the early 80's with reserves depleted by the 90's ... then there was the 1973/74 oil crisis which changed the economics of production, followed by the 1979/80 crisis caused by revolution in Iran which changed the economics again. Adjusting for inflation, the cost of oil isn't that different now than it was in 1979/80.

I agree that hydrocarbon fuel reserves are reducing and this will seriously increase the cost of energy, however, so will subsidising uneconomical technologies. There really needs to be a measured change from a carbon intensive energy strategy to a low carbon one taking account of which technologies require the lowest subsidies first whilst also ensuring that the energy providers do not take advantage of the situation, as they currently do ..... but that's for another thread.

Bringing this thread back to the original subject now, what are your thoughts on free solar/'rent-a-roof' schemes considering both the low energy yields and the extremely high returns to the companies which operate them ?

HTH
Z

Yes, production from the North Sea has been in decline since 2000 and even if new fields are opened up then production will never match what it was inthe past, all that will happen is that rate of decline will slow. And of course, as these will be less viable fields the prices will be much higher.

Regarding rent a roof, its not for me personally. However, I can see why some do like it and it allows those without the cash to benefit.

I'm curious about the high returns you mention? Lets assume they can get bulk discounts on panels, they might be getting say a 15% return. Not exactly a high return in my book for such a high capital investment. Plus, I wouldn't want to wait 8 years to break even - not the sort of business model I'm interested in.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see some of these rent a roof companies go bust once they start having to replace failed inverters in 5 years time.

Maybe they should introduce a FIT for nukes, you could rent your garden out for one

I'm not a big fan of nuclear by the way, its just that I dont see any other alternative. Given the long timescales involved if we are to increase our nuclear capacity we need to be doing it now (in fact we should have started years ago).

zeupater

PeterZ wrote: »

..... I'm curious about the high returns you mention? Lets assume they can get bulk discounts on panels, they might be getting say a 15% return. Not exactly a high return in my book for such a high capital investment. Plus, I wouldn't want to wait 8 years to break even - not the sort of business model I'm interested in ....

Hi

Assuming that they are direct schedule purchasing against a contract at decent rates (not solar farm prices) they will now likely break even somewhere in year 5 (excl. financing) or year 6 using borrowed money, then it's a case of sitting back & gathering the FiTs for very little further input, apart from the odd bit of administration, maintenance and repair ... and all that with index linking the turnover, which for almost any other sector is unheard of.

Z

furndire

The country has to start somewhere, and hopefully as it is viable for people to take up on these ways of generating power the technology will speed up and becomes more economical. We would have had to have done this far sooner if it hadn't been for North Sea Oil - its too late to turn the clock back.
If the technology progresses as fast in the next 20/30 years as it has in the last 20 we will either be in the cold and dark on a winters night, or we will be wondering what all the fuss was about.

PeterZ_2

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Assuming that they are direct schedule purchasing against a contract at decent rates (not solar farm prices) they will now likely break even somewhere in year 5 (excl. financing) or year 6 using borrowed money, then it's a case of sitting back & gathering the FiTs for very little further input, apart from the odd bit of administration, maintenance and repair ... and all that with index linking the turnover, which for almost any other sector is unheard of.

Z

Still sounds way over optomistic to me. Have you included any of the following:

legal costs
Liability insurance (an ongoing cost)
Tax
Interest on loans
Theft and damage to panels
Staff/employment costs
Redundancy for said staff in a couple of years time

Just like those with the free systems who over estimate the benefit to themsleves, I think you are way over estimating the money these rent a roof companies will make.

I'm always looking for new business opportunities, if I thought a rent a roof company could break even in 5 years I would seriously consider starting one myself!

Realistically, its going to be around 10 years before they break even. Thats way too long for me to wait, in fact I might not even be alive in ten years!!!

John_Pierpoint

Up until a week ago there was a model that was giving the the National Grid a dose of the vapours:

Shiny new - you cannot turn them off - nuclear powers stations linked to heat pumps using all that spare night time electricity to charge up the the super insulated floor slabs of Eco homes.
This model would be [STRIKE]subsidised[/STRIKE] incentivised by the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI).
But the grid in many places is built on the assumption that the average home will only draw 1 - 2 kW.

If you still think this model is the future and you want to live inside a night storage heater, get your application for a heat pump in just as soon as the RHI is announced and before your neighbours snaffle the very limited spare capacity of your local grid.

PeterZ_2

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Up until a week ago there was a model that was giving the the National Grid a dose of the vapours:

Shiny new - you cannot turn them off - nuclear powers stations linked to heat pumps using all that spare night time electricity to charge up the the super insulated floor slabs of Eco homes.
This model would be [STRIKE]subsidised[/STRIKE] incentivised by the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI).
But the grid in many places is built on the assumption that the average home will only draw 1 - 2 kW.

If you still think this model is the future and you want to live inside a night storage heater, get your application for a heat pump in just as soon as the RHI is announced and before your neighbours snaffle the very limited spare capacity of your local grid.

Really dont get the point you are trying to make. The average home draws way more 1-2kW which is only around 4-8 amps! The supply to my house is 60amp which is 13.8kW.

How will the neighbours 'snaffle' the spare capacity of the grid? Your home will have a supply to it and its up to you how you use it. That might be an 11kW power shower, or a 3kW electric oven, or a 12kW heat pump.

Nang

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Up until a week ago there was a model that was giving the the National Grid a dose of the vapours:

Shiny new - you cannot turn them off - nuclear powers stations linked to heat pumps using all that spare night time electricity to charge up the the super insulated floor slabs of Eco homes.
This model would be [STRIKE]subsidised[/STRIKE] incentivised by the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI).
But the grid in many places is built on the assumption that the average home will only draw 1 - 2 kW.

If you still think this model is the future and you want to live inside a night storage heater, get your application for a heat pump in just as soon as the RHI is announced and before your neighbours snaffle the very limited spare capacity of your local grid.

Hi John

Sorry I have to admit, I didn't really get that one either. I think a little more context might add some clarity.

Nang

Since no one has said it this time (someone usually does). Welcome to this forum Peter Z.

And here's a suggestion, for some of the more established members of the community.

How about actually listening to what new posters have to say, before deciding they haven't got anything useful to contribute. Why not give folk the benefit of the doubt, a few posts to get started.

As I have said before people get put off contributing if they receive a brutal reception. Politeness cost nothing and are one of the core rules of this website.

Lets face it, without new contributors the conversation in this room will become pretty stale. And I personally log on here to learn something new.