Free solar panel discussion

grahamc2003

slacky555 wrote: »

It wont have cost them 15k i know what you are saying but even if you say 12.5 years down the line when most people may see that they can or want to buy out homesun will have already made over 15k in FITs and then then will be paid an additional 7.5k if the customer buys out so total over 22.5k.

For them to initally out lay may be 10k so they havent lost money so why wouldnt they last long???

.

Because the 10k you say they have put up will have finance costs which, in all probability (say a cost of a lowly 7%pa) will cost more than £22.5k in 12.5 years time.

There's a difference in the value of the pounds you are talking about. £22.5k in 12 years time is worth probably £11.5k in todays money (assuming 5% inflation). turning a £10k value into a today's pound £11.5k in 12 years won't pay many salaries to sell, install, produce a website, advertise, collect the fits, pay the finance costs and generally run a business.

I'm pretty sure the business case only makes sense if the company owns the panels and collects the fits for the full 25 years, and the case falls down completely if they sell their then highly earning assets on the cheap.

It looks to me that those with a Homesun system on their roof could really make a lot of money simply by buying out the contract after 10 or so years (when it will be cheap to do so, being about £7.5k in inflated pounds, so about £4k in todays pounds). The return from the remaining fits will certainly dwarf the benefit they thought they had, which is a small amount of free electricity!

slacky555

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Because the 10k you say they have put up will have finance costs which, in all probability (say a cost of a lowly 7%pa) will cost more than £22.5k in 12.5 years time.

There's a difference in the value of the pounds you are talking about. £22.5k in 12 years time is worth probably £11.5k in todays money (assuming 5% inflation). turning a £10k value into a today's pound £11.5k in 12 years won't pay many salaries to sell, install, produce a website, advertise, collect the fits, pay the finance costs and generally run a business.

I'm pretty sure the business case only makes sense if the company owns the panels and collects the fits for the full 25 years, and the case falls down completely if they sell their then highly earning assets on the cheap.

It looks to me that those with a Homesun system on their roof could really make a lot of money simply by buying out the contract after 10 or so years (when it will be cheap to do so, being about £7.5k in inflated pounds, so about £4k in todays pounds). The return from the remaining fits will certainly dwarf the benefit they thought they had, which is a small amount of free electricity!

Yes i can see your point. Its all guessing thats the problem. And part of the 22.5k will be income via fit payment so would be spread over the 12.5 years so 15k wouldnt be as devalued as you may suggest.

But my main point was that homesun do not require the forgone fit payments once you buy out.

MrMoore

If you have a free system on the roof the contract says it will stay there for 25 years.

I you want to sell your property a potential buyer may find it unsightly or they may want their own system installed to get the income in addition to the free power.

Gizmosmum_2

Just a thought - I was at a friend's home today, they installed solar thermal panels 30 years ago. On the positive side they were still producing loads of hot water and needed little maintenance. On the minus side - they were pug ugly!! The degradation of the panel wasn't pretty to see. Now if they are on the rear of the property, not so bad - what about the front though, will solar pv degrade the same? Indications are that they will and if they do and you don't have the sweetner of Feed in Tariff to offset the ugly panels then I'm not sure where that leaves homeowners who rent their roof....

ronlizpatsimon

In my opionion; there will be more buyers who are pleased to buy a home which does have panels than buyers who find them unwelcome. Another factor that many people look for is a south facing garden - which a panelled roof will normally have.

zeupater

Gizmosmum wrote: »

Just a thought - I was at a friend's home today, they installed solar thermal panels 30 years ago. On the positive side they were still producing loads of hot water and needed little maintenance. On the minus side - they were pug ugly!! The degradation of the panel wasn't pretty to see. Now if they are on the rear of the property, not so bad - what about the front though, will solar pv degrade the same? Indications are that they will and if they do and you don't have the sweetner of Feed in Tariff to offset the ugly panels then I'm not sure where that leaves homeowners who rent their roof....

Agree ....

You'll probably find that the 'rent-a-roof' companies have built a business plan based on the 'free' transfer of panels to the homeowner in order to not need to honour the usual removal & 'make good' requirements of a lease, either that or have a business exit strategy already in mind for the period when the leases start to expire.

At the end of the FiT payments/lease period, many homeowners will have a potentially 'tatty' system generating 70% to 80% of the rated capacity when new, no FiT income, and eventually the repair/replacement bill for the inverter, followed sometime later by the cost of removal & disposal of the panels & mounting kit and repair to the roof (scaffolding, tiles etc) ..... excluding the inverter replacement that's probably a cost equivalent to somewhere around 15 to 20 years of accumulated energy savings.

Z

zeupater

ronlizpatsimon wrote: »

In my opionion; there will be more buyers who are pleased to buy a home which does have panels than buyers who find them unwelcome. Another factor that many people look for is a south facing garden - which a panelled roof will normally have.

Hi

The garden could face in any direction, the panels could be on a front, rear or even side roof as long as it faces south(ish) .......

Z

ronlizpatsimon

Reference Planning Permission

Previously I have been under the impression that Planning permission was not normally required unless the house or area was listed etc.

Today I found that in my area (Fenland) it is necessary to apply for "Building Regulation Approval". Your roof strength is then assessed to decide if it is strong enough to take the extra weight. If not; approval is not given, or you have to strengthen the structure before the approval is given.

Gizmosmum_2

Any decent installation firm should employ the services of a structural engineer as a minimum to make sure everything is safe, that should satisfy building control - normally the structural engineers are very well aquainted with the local Building Control officers.

barneygumble

When we applied we were told by a shade greener's structural engineer that our roof didn't have sufficient capacity to withstand a solar panel installation. When we had all the snow in winter I would wager there was far more weight in snow than the panels themselves would weigh. I wonder what factor of safety the engineers work to?