Free solar panel discussion

Jon_Tiffany

digitaltoast wrote: »

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.

DT - at least we agree on something see no reason why the post would have been deleted by a mod.

Luckily I quoted the entire post in one of my replies so its still there. I have my thoughts as to why the post was deleted, but I'm not going to say in public.....;)

sassy_one

I really advised any one considering one of these, not to do it.

Who knows if we will be selling or need/have to within 25 years? That's a long time to tie yourself down for a few free panels.
Also, although you can still sell your house, it will put some buyers off due to looks and the agreement etc, some people just hate having to agree to things they normally would not.

I have looked at the offer and personally think it's rubbish, and my advice is simple, AVOID

Perry525

M4ximillion wrote: »

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 .

=============================
To get the maximum output, you need a roof that faces minus one degree south and the correct elevation for the location.
The amount of sun that shines on the UK varies, dependent on the earths wobble, sea fog, mist, shade, rain, every square metre is different, homes in the south, that are closer to the equator do better in general.
Then there is the equipment, the losses in the system.
In many areas you are expected to fix the panels to the roof, as is, with no allowance for correct elevation.
As with most things attention to detail is important.

albyota

The hundreds of satellites orbiting around the earth since the sixties all have SOLAR PANELS fitted on them generating electricity to power them transmitting signals back to earth which have enabled us all to communicate globally, by radio, telephone, television, and now the computer, all appliances that require ELECTRICITY. how far would you like us to go back?

Cardew

M4ximillion wrote: »

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 .

Well you get a slightly higher return than you state as you will get an extra 3p/kWh for exported electricity and of course you get to use some of the free electricity.

The difference between talking about a' 7% return' is that if you invest cash at 7% you still have £15000 in the bank plus the interest each year.

If you 'invest' £15,000 in PV panels you have PV panels strapped to your roof which you have to purchase for - er £15,000!!

If you bought a car to use as a Taxi for £15k and it earned, say, £1.5k you wouldn't say it is an investment earning 10% - the car's depreciation would need to be considered.

With panels there will inevitably be some maintenance required and in many locations the requirement to clamber on the roof to clean off grime and bird droppings.

There is little doubt that in the very long term the PV panels should turn out to be a good investment - but it is very long term(12+ years IMO)

Poosmate

albyota wrote: »

After the bank bailout, we were left with the question, "where did the money go?". At least if we put our resources into the great transition away from fossil fuels there would be tangible results. We would be looking at a great wave of new employment opportunities, more energy security, a less vulnerable economy and the chance for a better future.

The bank bailout affected hundreds of thousands of people in a positive way. How many people would still be on the dole now had the banks been allowed to collapse? Who would be paying even more tax in both income and VAT to support them? How many pople would have lost their homes because the administrators of the banks were calling in the morgages? Have any of those banks that were bailed out reported losses? The shares the Government bought in those banks (the bailout) are worth more now than what the Government paid for them. The bailing of the banks, whilst unpallatable, was better than the alternative.

Maybe in a few years time the same could be said about all the solar panels that are being fitted now and the paying of the FiTs. I bet 90-95% of people wouldn't even contemplate having solar panels without the FiTs/free installations. The Government and the energy companies know this and they would be facing huge fines from the EU if they didn't hit their CO2 emissions reduction targets. The energy companies are required now to supply xx% or their energy from renewable sources and maybe, just maybe, they've done their sums and found it to be cheaper to pay FiT's than to try to procure land for wind turbines or produce "green" energy from other sources. It's been calculated (either in this thread or the other one) that the cost of FiTs to ALL electricity bill paying households will be around £8-£10 per YEAR. Not really a figure that will nosedive people into poverty is it?

Lets not forget either that this industry is taking off big style creating a lot of employment at a time when jobs are few and far between.

Also, whilst the energy is not being generated at "peak" times the flip side to that is that with so many people (eventually) trying to use as much of the "free" energy as possible, then maybe as people's habits change the draw on the grid at such "peak" times will lessen. Obviously, for that to happen there's going to have to be a lot of solar panels (and other renewable energy sources) in place and for people to use them at their optimum times. There is nothing like financial incentives to influence people's habits.

John_Pierpoint

Exactly - it is all about minimum cost accounting and smart metering - the objective is to avoid massive investments in nasty technology.

There was some eminent guy on the radio this week "proving" that the global economy needs to commission nuclear power stations at the rate of ONE per DAY for the next 40 years

That really is the pigs may fly solution.

Perry525 wrote: »

Do we have a right to sunshine?
The Government is asking us to spend £9,500 or more fitting solar panels.
This in attempt to create more jobs and get the economy moving and to reduce our import bill to help our balance of payments and to save the world, regardless of the Chinese just signing a contract with Australia to provide 50 million tons of coal over the next 25 years.
The EU have decreed that we must stop burning coal.

Having put our panels on the roof or wherever, we are promised a profitable return over 25 years.

In that time trees will have grown, buildings will have gone up around us and we could be living in the dark.

Do we have the right to object?
Can we force the removal of large trees?
Can we stop the building?
Have we a right to compensation? And if we do have a right who will pay us?

This could put a whole new life into the common law concept of "ancient lights".

I bet the law and the planning system has not even started to think about the conflicts being stored up.

If I fall out with my neighbour he just has to plant ONE leylandii to get back at me - if you are using sunshine that comes over someone else's land - be warned.

albyota wrote: »

The hundreds of satellites orbiting around the earth since the sixties all have SOLAR PANELS fitted on them generating electricity to power them transmitting signals back to earth which have enabled us all to communicate globally, by radio, telephone, television, and now the computer, all appliances that require ELECTRICITY. how far would you like us to go back?

It is a near absolute pollution and rain free vacuum up there.

Ret70

Does anyone have information regarding the effects on installed solar systems during electrical storms.?

Even though the systems are insulated do they suffer from induced charges?
Thanks

davehills

If you buy your own solar system you run the risk that FiTs get withdrawn or revised so you might not get your money back!

(I *Know* they say they are "guaranteed", but bear in mind the Government can effectively do what it wants. Take pensions for example, where they were "guaranteed" only to have Mr Brown putting his sticky fingers into the pot..)

It seems financially safer to go with one of the "free" schemes, but I wonder what'd happen if the FiTs were withdrawn? Would they take the panels back? Would they leave them? Would they start charging for them?

daytona600_2

Ret70 wrote: »

Does anyone have information regarding the effects on installed solar systems during electrical storms.?

Even though the systems are insulated do they suffer from induced charges?
Thanks

special pv arrestors are made for
lightning , overvoltage & surge protection
class one , class two or class one & two combined units
on dc side 600/1000vdc & ac side 240/415v