Free solar panel discussion

Cardew

digitaltoast wrote: »

I just find it hard to believe .

An improvement from 'outright lies'??

Jon_Tiffany

cat.solar wrote: »

The three pictures of CAT's PV systems and accompanying commentary are somewhat misleading.The first picture is one of CAT PV roofs- there are 3 in total. The roof was installed its Photovoltaic
(PV) roof over 15 years ago. When it was first built it was the largest PV array in the UK , about 112sq meters and generating up to 13.5 kilowatts. Innovative in it's day the frame needed replacing and the panel remounting, the work was carried out thanks to neighbouring company Dulas, the roof is as good as new and will carry on producing electricity for CAT

The second is a picture of the inverter output of a different and SMALLER PV roof, but is referred to in the post as the larger roof talked about as though it is the BIG roof. The reading of 184W is in fact from the 1.68kWp roof - a typical reading in overcast conditions. That roof has fairly respectable annual yield of around 700kWh/kWp, way less than for example in Cornwall but not too far from expectations for its location, orientation and having a big hill in the way of the winter sun.

The third picture is an old display box, which only gives the output of one of the inverters, not the 6 which are used by the whole roof. That is superceded by the new display underneath the Romag panels.


At CAT we run regular courses on PV roof installation. CAT has unrivalled facilities for PV installation training, with domestic & commercial PV systems on site. The course covers: the solar resource; working at height; DC wiring; grid connection (G83 & G59); structural issues; building regulations and planning. The competencies assessed in the course are a requirement to apply for accreditation as a PV installer under BRE microgeneration accreditation and to install systems funded by the Low Carbon Building Programme.

--

Thanks for clearing that up, it comes as no surprise that digitaltoast was posting misleading information yet again. I did wonder if DT had only looked at one of many inverters, an array that size would never run from just one inverter.

Jon_Tiffany

There is a useful article on the energy saving trust website about free solar PV:

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Generate-your-own-energy/Solar-electricity/Consumer-guidance-on-free-solar-PV-offers

samba

M4ximillion wrote: »

If I had the money I would definitely buy my own because I would get a better rate of return than it sat in a bank.

Is this really true? I have seen no evidence of this - all I see is statements like "Double your money in 25 years" etc. If I put my money in a tax-free savings plan paying just 3% I will also achieve that. I can currently get a 5 year bond paying 4.75%, so imho this scheme is not better than putting the money in a bank, unless someone can show me otherwise. Even if you earn £1000/year, you are only earning the equivalent of 4% interest rate over the 25 year period.

Also I checked out the calculator on the energysavingtrust's website. It says I will save £158 per year in electricty costs. However, based on my current rates I will save just half that - don't forget it will only be the cheaper units you save not the expensive ones. The website seems to assuming that I pay 15p/unit, which I don't.

I had one extra thought about this while cycling to work today (a much more effective way to save money and the environment, not to mention getting fit without paying gym fees - I save over £5/day on petrol alone) - if some of the solar energy that falls on your house is being turned into electricity, then it is no longer doing what it did before, which is heating up your house slightly. So your house is colder, and requires more energy to heat, which in my case means more gas usage. So again, a little bit of the gains are made up for by increased costs elsewhere, just like we will all be paying an extra 3% on our electricity bills to pay for this scheme.

Finally it occurred to me that the companies involved will not be paying VAT, will be able to bulk purchase the panels and will have much cheaper installation costs by employing their own installers. So they make much more money than we would doing it ourselves, yet all they offer in return is free electric? That's a poor deal imho - they can easily afford to give us free electric AND pay us a fair percentage of the FIT and still make a huge profit, yet they don't because so many people seem to be ready to bite their hands off for the meagre savings they currently offer.

Jon_Tiffany

samba wrote: »

Is this really true? I have seen no evidence of this - all I see is statements like "Double your money in 25 years" etc. If I put my money in a tax-free savings plan paying just 3% I will also achieve that. I can currently get a 5 year bond paying 4.75%, so imho this scheme is not better than putting the money in a bank, unless someone can show me otherwise. Even if you earn £1000/year, you are only earning the equivalent of 4% interest rate over the 25 year period.

Also I checked out the calculator on the energysavingtrust's website. It says I will save £158 per year in electricty costs. However, based on my current rates I will save just half that - don't forget it will only be the cheaper units you save not the expensive ones. The website seems to assuming that I pay 15p/unit, which I don't.

I had one extra thought about this while cycling to work today (a much more effective way to save money and the environment, not to mention getting fit without paying gym fees - I save over £5/day on petrol alone) - if some of the solar energy that falls on your house is being turned into electricity, then it is no longer doing what it did before, which is heating up your house slightly. So your house is colder, and requires more energy to heat, which in my case means more gas usage. So again, a little bit of the gains are made up for by increased costs elsewhere, just like we will all be paying an extra 3% on our electricity bills to pay for this scheme.

Finally it occurred to me that the companies involved will not be paying VAT, will be able to bulk purchase the panels and will have much cheaper installation costs by employing their own installers. So they make much more money than we would doing it ourselves, yet all they offer in return is free electric? That's a poor deal imho - they can easily afford to give us free electric AND pay us a fair percentage of the FIT and still make a huge profit, yet they don't because so many people seem to be ready to bite their hands off for the meagre savings they currently offer.

Some very good points.

But, they contradict a little? First off you say its not a very good investment and then later on say that the companies will make a huge profit? To be honest I dont think the companies will get a much better return than an individual. In their favour they have reduced costs, but then they have to pay tax and have the costs of running a business. As an individual the returns are tax free.

When comparing FITs against a bank account I think there is a very important point that people overlook. With a savings account you can get your money back out at any time. With the panels, if you need the cash, then you're stuffed.

100% agree with cycling to work, much bigger savings to had by using the car less.

Interesting point about the loss of heating from the Sun, while true I would of thought that effect would be tiny, assuming that your loft is well insulated. You could argue that the reverse is true in the summer if you use air conditioning.

Jon_Tiffany

samba wrote: »

Also I checked out the calculator on the energysavingtrust's website. It says I will save £158 per year in electricty costs. However, based on my current rates I will save just half that - don't forget it will only be the cheaper units you save not the expensive ones. The website seems to assuming that I pay 15p/unit, which I don't.

Spot on - 15p a unit? I'll be surprised if anyone is paying that much at todays prices.

M4ximillion

I don't know how to quote people, sorry, but in reply to Samba about how I'd calculated the returns to be better than money in a bank - from what I read, you get 41.3p per kw hour. I was thinking about a 3.3kw system that a shade greener (in answer to my email) said could get a minimum of 2800kw hours each year (if it was on a good south facing roof). So, say that cost me £15,000 - I would get £1156.40 each year - correct me if I'm wrong - 2800kw hours x 41.3p = £1156.40 - in my calculation that is a 7% return on my £15,000 (or have I done my sums wrong???) so I'd be getting more back than I would in interest if I invested that £15k in a bank. Also, that return is tax free and I read that the 41.3p is index linked. Admittedly, I wouldn't have the £15k to spend anymore as JohnTiffany points out. But in my view it is better than sitting in a bank doing nothing. Not that I would ever have £15k sitting in a bank doing nothing .

digitaltoast

Well this is odd, cat.solar have deleted their own post...

John_Pierpoint

Or has it been taken down as advertising?

digitaltoast

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Or has it been taken down as advertising?

I doubt whether you could accuse a non-profit charitable educational centre of advertising when they didn't even post a link!
If any mod deleted the post for that, then they are mind-blowingly staggeringly moronic! And besides, a reason would have been given by any half decent mod.