Free solar panel discussion

M4ximillion

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I frankly find the 'free scheme' very unattractive for almost everybody. aiui, the scheme requires a charge to be made on your property (meaning you need the panel owners permission to sell your house) and that (obviously!) shouldn't be undertaken lightly or without legal advice. And the legal advice would probably cost a fair percentage of the 'free' electricity benefit over the full 25 years.

No it doesn't - there is no charge whatsoever so that's bad info. There is a lease, but no charge, I've already discussed it with their in house solicitor. You dont need to get their permission at all to sell and Ive also got a copy of the lease - no scaries at all.

M4ximillion

PK49 wrote: »

This must be the worst case of spelling and lack of apostrophe use during this whole thread!! :eek:

You think thats bad - you should see my twitter:D

Gizmosmum_2

Martin's on Radio 2 at 1pm - should be interesting to see what he says...

Jon_Tiffany

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Helping people save money on energy? That is something it definately does not and cannot do. By subsidising an extremely inefficient method of generation (as solar is), at the very best all you can do is enable a very few people reduce their bills by a very small amount at the cost of everyone else having increased energy bills (sorry if that is boring for you).


I frankly find the 'free scheme' very unattractive for almost everybody. aiui, the scheme requires a charge to be made on your property (meaning you need the panel owners permission to sell your house) and that (obviously!) shouldn't be undertaken lightly or without legal advice. And the legal advice would probably cost a fair percentage of the 'free' electricity benefit over the full 25 years.

Graham, could you explain exactly why solar pv is inefficient?

As far as I'm aware none of these schemes place a charge on the property. Having a discussion is fine but you shouldn't post information that is so clearly wrong.

Nigel_Wakefield

Almost the first thing the article preceding this thread says: "There are two types of solar panels".

Wrong - there are three, the third is called PV-T Photovoltaic Thermal) and it generates both electricity and hot water from the same panel.

It's more expensive than the individual PV or Solar Thermal alternatives, but cheaper than the two of them put together..... less roof space required, only installation, greater electricity output than normal PV panels.

I'd love Martin to find out a little more about this technology, since I work for the company that sells the panels. The panels are accredited for both the Feed In Tariff and the Renewable Heat Incentive - so when that scheme is started, customers will be paid for both the electricity and the heat generated.

grahamc2003

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

Graham, could you explain exactly why solar pv is inefficient?

As far as I'm aware none of these schemes place a charge on the property. Having a discussion is fine but you shouldn't post information that is so clearly wrong.

Aren't some of the inefficiecies perfectly obvious? As a consumer, I have to pay (indirectly) a minimum of 44p/kwh for solar, whereas I can buy a kwh from my supplier for 8.5p (day rate) and 4.2p (night rate), and my supplier can buy it from the generators for something like 3.5/4.0p/kwh on average. That means solar is something like 10 times more expensive than the going rate for electricity. That is the obvious inefficiency.

A more subtle inefficiency, which has been discussed on here, is the duplication of generating capacity solar requires. Because it contributes nothing at times of maximum demand, no matter how much solar power we subsidise, we will still have to have exactly the same number of conventional power stations, so we pay twice for the same capacity (and these things aren't cheap). So solar introduces (unwanted) redundancy and (unwanted) duplication.

Please retract your incorrect statement that I post false information (in fact it is you who is doing exactly that which you accuse me of doing). I said 'as far as I am aware', or 'to the best of my knowledge' or 'if I remember correctly' or similar (edit - actually it was 'as I understant it') before stating my view on the legal charge - and even if the legal charge is not taken, what I posted was perfectly correct (unlike your rather odious accusation).

csae

Oh deary me, the reporting police have been out in force...And for what?. The post wasn't directed at anybody in particular....This is why these threads always end up in a thanks fest, anybody outside the clique is hunted down into submission.

Won't the forum be a little dull with just ten "thankers" on it?. You would have to argue amongst yourselves then...

gennis

As I see it the deal is this if you want to take advantage .The whys and wherefores don't really matter.
you pay approx £10k for a 2 kw peak system .It generates close to a £1000 per year .The scheme which is only open at the moment to enter on the higher rate till 2012 is guaranteed for 25 years .The feed in tariff is funded by the energy companies who are going to raise there rates to cover it .You invest 10k an get back 25k .If you move the value of your house is likely to be increased because you have much cheaper running costs .As long as you use a good qualified MCS contractor like the low carbon energy company its a winner .If I am wrong I stand to be corrected.what I do know is that if you dont take it up somebody else will and you will be paying them for their ''cheap '' electricity

geoff2

Elainemary wrote: »

Just to let all " fors " and " againsts " know there was an article in yesterday's Daily Mirror regarding what Which? magazine has to say about free panels. Any comments about what they have to say? Some of the recent mails have become like 5 year olds squabbling in a sand pit. Can we all get back to reasoned discussion, please or is that asking too much?

Elaine, help us out a bit and reveal what said publications had to say about the subject. Then we can comment.

Jon_Tiffany

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Please retract your incorrect statement that I post false information (in fact it is you who is doing exactly that which you accuse me of doing). I said 'as far as I am aware', or 'to the best of my knowledge' or 'if I remember correctly' or similar (edit - actually it was 'as I understant it') before stating my view on the legal charge - and even if the legal charge is not taken, what I posted was perfectly correct (unlike your rather odious accusation).

Your exact words were:

"I frankly find the 'free scheme' very unattractive for almost everybody. aiui, the scheme requires a charge to be made on your property (meaning you need the panel owners permission to sell your house) and that (obviously!) shouldn't be undertaken lightly or without legal advice. And the legal advice would probably cost a fair percentage of the 'free' electricity benefit over the full 25 years."

To me its quite clear that you made a statement about a charge being placed on the property as if it was fact. The truth is that these companies do not put a charge on your property.