Free solar panel discussion

pauldreed

Gizmosmum wrote: »

Found what looks like quite a good solar book on Amazon if anyone wants a bot more info. It's called Solar Electricity Book by Michael Boxwell. Somewhere round the £10 mark and has a supporting website www.solarelectrcityhandbook.com. Starting to read tomorrow!

That must be http://www.solarelectricityhandbook.com/

cef

If you have these solar panels put on your house and then you move, do you still retain the £800 per year?

Gizmosmum_2

cef wrote: »

If you have these solar panels put on your house and then you move, do you still retain the £800 per year?

You can take the feed in tariff with you if the buyer agrees. That means you won't get the benefit of the free elctricity but you still get the feed in tariff. I'm waiting for ScottishPower Fit team to come back to me to see if I move if I can take the panels with me.

An additional cost but a better investment (assuming I move to a south facing roof) because I get the electricity and the fit.

:think: Does anyone know if small private landlords will be taxed on the Fit because the electricity generated is not for personal gain? The treasury info that I can find isn't very clear.

John_Pierpoint

Gizmosmum wrote: »

Found what looks like quite a good solar book on Amazon if anyone wants a bot more info. It's called Solar Electricity Book by Michael Boxwell. Somewhere round the £10 mark and has a supporting website www.solarelectrcityhandbook.com. Starting to read tomorrow!

Am I right in thinking that this book is written for the American market?
(Ie includes picture of relatively low voltage circuits)
Is this book written in metric units or does it continually revert to pounds, gallons (US), and Btu's.

I ask because a well meaning relative, a couple of Xmases ago, gave me a book that enabled me to evaluate the energy and carbon footprint of my home so I could "size" the improvements I would need.
Unfortunately all the units were those still used in N.America and almost impossible to use for European specifications.

A U-tube video was linked in a posting about 2 months ago.
It showed the installation of panels on a typical USA roofing felt roof.
Interestingly every panel had its own inverter (up on the roof:eek:) - making faults easy to identify.

Gizmosmum_2

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that this book is written for the American market?
(Ie includes picture of relatively low voltage circuits)
Is this book written in metric units or does it continually revert to pounds, gallons (US), and Btu's.

I ask because a well meaning relative, a couple of Xmases ago, gave me a book that enabled me to evaluate the energy and carbon footprint of my home so I could "size" the improvements I would need.
Unfortunately all the units were those still used in N.America and almost impossible to use for European specifications.

A U-tube video was linked in a posting about 2 months ago.
It showed the installation of panels on a typical USA roofing felt roof.
Interestingly every panel had its own inverter (up on the roof:eek:) - making faults easy to identify.

Haven't realy got started but bought it on the basis that it's American with European info to support it and flicking through the book yesterday that's what it looks like.

The prinicples of pv will be the same (that's why I got it to make sure I'd covered everything.) It shows you how to identify what you need , do a site survey etc etc all of which helps before you commit.

I had a quick look at the inverter section which shows pics of what looks like a european installation. It's been updated each year for the last 2 years - maybe it's just added a more european focus?? I'll let you know when I've got through it.

grahamc2003

jellyhead wrote: »

Explain to me why I wouldn't be better off than my neighbour who doesn't have the panels then? I don't CARE that the company who makes the outlay and does the work will get 90% of the income.

Unless there's some reason why having these panels would end up costing me more than I get back, or would inconvenience me in some way then why aren't I getting something for nothing? I'm not going to be moving within the 25 years so I don't see this as devaluing my house, and even if something better comes along in 5 years I wouldn't be able to afford it then anyway. I'm not in a position to outlay anything.

The only drawback as far as I can see it weighing up any environmental benefit and warm smug feeling against the points that have been made about everyone else having to pay more to cover the FITS.

I really wish people wouldn't thinkl they are getting something for nothing. With the 'free' panels scheme, you are entering into a 25 year contract, and that isn't something to be done lightly. Furthermore, unless I am mistaken, the panel owners make a legal charge against your property, meaning you can't sell without discharging that charge, and that can only be done with the company's consent i.e. they can stop you selling your house unless you meet the criteria they set - and a 25 year charge on your property certainly requires, imv, the advice from a solicitor (as someone early on in this thread realised). Everything may seem so simple today, but predicting how solicitors will advise your property purchaser in 10 years time when there'll be an obligation to accept the balance of the 25 year agreement in order to proceed is impossible to predict.

So the risk you takle on for something like £100pa benefit under that scheme is the risk of having trouble selling or additional selling costs in the years ahead.

For the avoidance of doubt, could someone who has signed up for this type of 'free' deal confirm that the contract authorises the panel owners to put a charge on your property at the land registry?

grahamc2003

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

Cardew, I think we have been in agreement all along, but discussing different points. I certainly agree that peak capacity will not be affected, but was trying to point out that there are other things to be considered as well.

But 'other things' tend to fade into insignificance compared to peak demand considerations. I'd say that any generation which isn't (almost) guaranteed to generate at times of peak demand cannot be considered as environmentally sound (this is an engineering point of view). It simply isn't 'green', since other capacity has to be made available to meet the peak, and that means lots of concrete, construction, as well as, these days, gas - all of which produce co2 which you appear to claim solar panels reduce (they may do at the instant of generation, but they also ensure co2 is produced as a consequence).
................

The problem with this whole scheme is mainly seen only by the engineering types, who in general take an overall, rather than a personal, view of these things. Sure, individuals (and the 'freebie' companies) can make some sort of return from FITs - hence the many pro views on here. But as for the UK as a whole, the system, in engieering terms, is simply total madness. It is a very large subsidy (probably 10 times the going rate) for an extremnely inefficient method of generating electricity - and furthermore, generating that electricity when electricity is cheap anyhow (i.e. not at peak times). Individuals taking up the offer may see some sort of return, but the uk as a whole (i.e. everyone in it) overall loses out.

Cardew

grahamc2003 wrote: »

But as for the UK as a whole, the system, in engineering terms, is simply total madness.

Spot on!

To give a subsidy of 41.3p a kWh to loads of small(and hence inefficient) installations makes no sense at all.

Even if a case could be made for solar in UK(and it can't!!) then it would make sense to have very large 'solar farms' with hundreds/thousands of panels mounted on the roof of a factory/warehouse/supermarket in Southern England where the output is higher.

It adds insult to injury in allowing firms(like ASG) to take advantage of a loophole in the regulations and make profits by getting a large subsidy, designed for individual houses, for a commercial enterprise.

That subsidy(and thus their profit) is paid for by the rest of us electricty consumers, most of whom could not have a solar system even if we wanted one(i.e. living in flats, having the 'wrong roof', renting not owning etc)

davehills

Thought:

These systems generate most electricity when the majority of people are out and don't heat hot water.

What's to stop people connecting up an immersion heater on a timer or even a light activated switch. If the tank is well insulated, it'd heat up during the day and they'd be enough hot water for a bath come the evening.

davehills

Cardew wrote: »

For most people contemplating fitting(and paying for) solar the dilemma is how long it will take for the system to pay for itself and start earning income.

The biggest dilemma is whether FITs will exist in a few years and if they do, what' they'll be paying.

The Government could do *anything* with them, scale them back or remove them entirely.

That'd blow 'pay for itself' financial plans out the water!