Current PV panel prices

Cardew

Eco_Energies wrote: »

Voltage Optimisation is not a new technology. Asda and Tesco use this technology to reduce electricity consumption. I will leave the Voltage Optimisation supplier Vphase to address the negative comments posted subsequent to your request for information.

The calculation which all MCS accredited renewable energy companies use is SAP (standard assessment procedure). The calculation for energy savings is simple. If a solar array was to generate annually 1,000 kWh then by default the home owner would not be drawing that consumption from the grid. If the homeowner was paying 0.14p per kWh (or unit of electricity) then they would be saving £140 per annum.

Who is to say what the average consumption is of a home, how many people are there during the day, what electrical appliances do they use? I would argue strongly that most home owners during the day will not only use what they generate but arguably will still draw power from the grid. A solar homeowner will change their habits and will run their vacuum cleaner, washing machine, dishwasher and tumble dryer during the day, therefore taking advantage of their free electricity. If you are not there during day light hours have installed timers so that the items switch on and run automatically.

The average standard tariff price quoted by the big six electricity suppliers is 14p per kWh or unit of electricity. A home owner that I visited on Monday 11th June was spending £2,320 per annum, his consumption was 19,148 kWh which is an average of 12.01p per unit. With the typical increase in electricity cost’s predicted at between 10-15% the average standard tariff price will rise to circa 15p per unit.

In summary Eco Energies ambition is to become a solar provider of choice within the Surrey, Sussex and London area. To achieve this we provide a open and transparent cost to supply and install, which is backed up with a no fuss exceptional service.

I understand that your father is in discussion with our London Solar PV business development manager Clive and suggest that if he requires any clarification on any point that he speaks with Clive direct. I understand that your father originally provided a unit price of 15p per kWh, he has now confirmed that he is paying 12.38p per unit of electricity.

I trust that this clarifies matters?

Kind regards

Eco Energies

Asda and Tesco will benefit from Voltage optimisation as they have banks of fridges and freezers.

Whilst there will be some savings in domestic situations, Ohm's law still applies.

I cannot believe you are serious when you 'strongly argue' that the generation of 1,000kWh from PV panels will save £140! Thus you are using 100% of the generated power in the house.

How do you reconcile that statement with the EST estimate that typically 75% of generated electricity is exported and average savings are £70 a year?

That 1.56kWp system might generate up to 1.5kW. As I sit here with a desktop PC and a 37inch TV both on, plus background consumption I am using 0.48kW in the house. Often it is below 200wp.

Should I have the above PV system generating at its maximum, 1kW would be being exported.

Even if you put on appliances during the day, a washing machine for example will draw 3kW for a few minutes on most programs and then very little - most cycles use 0.4 or 0.6kWh.

Then we come onto the price of electricity. It is very convenient to quote figures of 14p/kWh. However those figures for a standard tariff include the Tier 1 'standing charge'.(we all know where to find them) Any savings attributable to PV panels have to be costed at Tier 2 prices as he will use up his Tier 1 consumption at night and when the panels are not generating.

There are still tariffs available with most of the companies where the Tier 2 price is below 10p/kWh.



P.S.
A house owner using 19,148kWh without being on Economy 7 with storage heaters is a very rare beast!

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Asda and Tesco will benefit from Voltage optimisation as they have banks of fridges and freezers.

Whilst there will be some savings in domestic situations, Ohm's law still applies.

I cannot believe you are serious when you 'strongly argue' that the generation of 1,000kWh from PV panels will save £140! Thus you are using 100% of the generated power in the house.

How do you reconcile that statement with the EST estimate that typically 75% of generated electricity is exported and average savings are £70 a year?

That 1.56kWp system might generate up to 1.5kW. As I sit here with a desktop PC and a 37inch TV both on, plus background consumption I am using 0.48kW in the house. Often it is below 200wp.

Should I have the above PV system generating at its maximum, 1kW would be being exported.

Even if you put on appliances during the day, a washing machine for example will draw 3kW for a few minutes on most programs and then very little - most cycles use 0.4 or 0.6kWh.

Then we come onto the price of electricity. It is very convenient to quote figures of 14p/kWh. However those figures for a standard tariff include the Tier 1 'standing charge'.(we all know where to find them) Any savings attributable to PV panels have to be costed at Tier 2 prices as he will use up his Tier 1 consumption at night and when the panels are not generating.

There are still tariffs available with most of the companies where the Tier 2 price is below 10p/kWh.



P.S.
A house owner using 19,148kWh without being on Economy 7 with storage heaters is a very rare beast!

Hi

I fully endorse the post quoted above.

What needs to be considered is that installers are actually required to provide savings to the SAP standard formula. It must be noted, as previously raised, that the basis for the creation of the SAP formula is flawed, and above that, it is known to be flawed by many (most ?) MCS accredited installers. The BRE themselves recognise, within their own documentation, that the formula is not based on sound data.

It is plainly obvious that the continued use of the SAP formula to estimate the pv generation displaced imported energy savings is wrong and that many within the industry are either knowingly using this to their advantage or are simply not aware that the figures which they are providing are misleading their customer base.

So what can be done ?. Well, a number of MCS installers read this forum, so why aren't they protecting the image of their industry practices ?. Add to this the EST, they read this forum and contribute, large energy providers also read and contribute .... so come on guys, you all have direct access to the MCS, so pull your socks up and call the MCS in order to correct the situation. It's a simple FMEA scenario, the Failure Mode being the supply of defective information, the Effective Action being to correct the situation by providing a more realistic formula for the estimation of savings.

It would be reassuring to hear that as a result of this exchange at least one more MCS accredited installer will be more open in their customer dealings regarding the likely value of energy savings, as my chosen installer was .... perhaps this will be confirmed, perhaps not, if confirmed I'd classify them as standing beside the 'good guys', if not, a little shady in their practices and maybe inline for a 'black stetson' award .....

HTH
Z

zeupater

Hi All

Looks like a moderator has been around before I could grab a quote .... anyway, a post was made by a representative of a company which provided training services for MCS accreditation, which fully supported a post made by one of their trained clients, who seemed to have claimed that 100% of generated power could be used in the house and this was supported by the BRE SAP calculation ......

If ESE Ben is reading, the BRE SAP document states ....

http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/SAP...-2009_9-90.pdf

Quote : SAP 2009 version 9.90 (March 2010) - Appendix M1 (Page 82)

'Electricity exported is valued at the price for electricity sold to the grid. The

effective price depends on a factor, b, which

is in the range 0.0 to 1.0 and is defined as the proportion of the generated electricity that is used directly within the dwelling. The value of b depends on the coincidence of electricity generation and electricity demand within the dwelling. At present the value of b = 0.50 should be used for SAP calculations: this will be reviewed in future if relevant data becomes available.'

.... so quite clearly 50% is all that should be used, and as discussed previously on this forum, even that is extremely questionable. If the trained client/customer calculated the savings as being 100% of generation they were clearly wrong to do so and shouldn't have been supported so readily. Perhaps the training organisation would also like to contact the MCS and lobby for change, or maybe give their own guidance to their customers relating to the shortcomings of the SAP calculation within the training sessions in order to ensure that consumers do not consider themselves as having been misled.

HTH
Z

Big_Mac_TMMM

zeupater wrote: »

Hi All

Looks like a moderator has been around before I could grab a quote

To be honest. I'm a bit disappointed that the posts were removed.

I came here because I was confused by the numbers in general. I asked questions and was given some additional concerns about the numbers.

You had just said in your previous post about action being required.

With someone from my installer setting up an account specifically to answer my concern and someone else from their training company or suppler also setting up an account to provide information I was getting something that you want from a company...customer service.

Both you and Cardew suggest the maths in the SAP is wrong.

I would have loved to have seen a further response. It would have been useful to me.

From what I can remember, it would seem to be the SAP and not the salesman that is at fault here. It is possible that the company could get the SAP to give an updated formula or show how to work out what the suggested 25% usage would give you, as well as giving the SAP stats that they are required to give.

Maybe EcoEnergies were right and maybe they were wrong. Shutting them out of the discussion would not seem to be in the interest of myself and others interested in evaluating the prices.

If a moderator deleted these posts, I would say that is an own goal for MSE.

Please. Lets have them back so they can talk to Cardew and zeupater.

zeupater wrote: »

is in the range 0.0 to 1.0 and is defined as the proportion of the generated electricity that is used directly within the dwelling. The value of b depends on the coincidence of electricity generation and electricity demand within the dwelling. At present the value of b = 0.50 should be used for SAP calculations: this will be reviewed in future if relevant data becomes available.'

.... so quite clearly 50% is all that should be used, and as discussed previously on this forum, even that is extremely questionable. If the trained client/customer calculated the savings as being 100% of generation they were clearly wrong to do so and shouldn't have been supported so readily. Perhaps the training organisation would also like to contact the MCS and lobby for change, or maybe give their own guidance to their customers relating to the shortcomings of the SAP calculation within the training sessions in order to ensure that consumers do not consider themselves as having been misled.

I do think this entire SAP thing is misleading. But if the government are forcing installers to use it, it is going to be them at fault. I don't see why the SAP could not include options for 25%, 50% and 75% as a guide to some examples of what would happen if you were in or out more.

From what I recall of the second removed post, the guy that was trying to help me said there was an assumption that people would change their lifestyles. With an average calculation, that makes sense, but if the SAP gave different options, then someone would know the consequences of not using electricity in the day.

Cardew

Big_Mac_TMMM wrote: »

Both you and Cardew suggest the maths in the SAP is wrong.

.

Not just us two but the Energy Saving Trust!

It is also pertinent to add that is for a figure of 50% in the SAP calculation that is acknowledged to be too high - so the 100% used above by Eco energies is a nonsense.


Agreed it is a pity that the posts were deleted instead of modified(it is understandable that MSE does not allow their forums to be used to promote firms). However anyone can register and have a discussion(dispute!)without declaring an interest.


Actually your query is answered by the MSE article on EST upgrading their estimate of the percentage of generated electricity.

The EST now say typically only 25% of generated electricity is used in the house and worth £70 pa. Obviously there are caveats and some people can use more; others less.

If you generate 2000kWh and use 25% in the house it is 500kWh, 50% = 1,000kWh etc and you use the tier 2 price of electricity on your tariff - not the silly figures of 15p/kWh so beloved of salesmen.

If you are buying a system - the savings on generated electricity are just 'icing on the cake' - it is the FIT that provides the main income.

Obviously for 'Rent a Roof' systems this subject has far greater implications.

malch

N9eav wrote: »

After having the Solatricity man around 2 weeks ago and turning him down. 'The boss' called up last night offering a 15 panel 2.1kw system for £10900.
I know their sales tactics have been questionable. But my sis in law had their panels installed and the work was good.

Is that a fair price? How good are Kyocera panels?

Is this graph realistic? What is the red triangle make?

i would have said that price is a bit over the top 2.2Kw system in Feb was £8500, have seen them cheaper than that since.

N9eav

malch wrote: »

i would have said that price is a bit over the top 2.2Kw system in Feb was £8500, have seen them cheaper than that since.

I know there is cheaper. There is always cheaper. But is it like for like?

I have a Miele washing machine. It cost £500. I could have got a Beko for £199. But the Miele is far superior, although both wash clothes....

Anyone know what are best components?

Cardew

N9eav wrote: »

I know there is cheaper. There is always cheaper. But is it like for like?

I have a Miele washing machine. It cost £500. I could have got a Beko for £199. But the Miele is far superior, although both wash clothes....

Anyone know what are best components?

We have had 50 years to prove that Miele washing machines are bullet proof and deserve their fine reputation for longevity.

Not so with PV panels and components, or indeed how different installers fix them on the roof.

We will probably know the answer to your question in 10 years!! When I suspect that few PV systems will be manufactured and installed - assuming that FITs for new installations will have stopped.

davidanddeirdre

I paid Cleaner Air Solutions £7955 in early March for ten Sharp panels + Sunny Boy inverter, nominal 1.75kW output. It does more or less what was said on the tin, but I would advise PV newbies a few points:
1. Get as much information about Solar PV BEFORE you start getting quotes as possible.
2. Get at least 5 quotes. It is amazing not only the range of prices but the range of salesman technical knowledge about the systems being sold.
3. If your potential installer contact knows next to nothing about the technical side, forget them whatever they quote. And by "technical" I mean including how a system will practically be applied, and perform, in YOUR situation.
4. If there are several suppliers in the running, think about favouring one near at hand- easier to bang on their door if a complaint.
5. Ask to see an example of their work by your favoured installer. A representative of the installer and the owner of the system should be there to explain what is going on.
6. Think about where to put the ancillaries- e.g. installers all seem to assume that the inverter will go in the roof space- this may not be appropriate to you (I insisted mine went next existing meter where I can see it)
7. Because of the fixed costs of installation, it may not be worth having any less than 1.75kW
8. It is CRUCIAL that there is no shading of any part of the panels during the main period direct sun would be shining on them. You lose a whole panel output for the slightest shade on it.
9. Most of the income is from the FIT. If there is no-one in your house all day to manage daylight usage, pretty well all of it may be, so take that into account in your payback calculation.
10. Last but not least, get genned up before installation on how to get your FIT. On no account rely on the installer to set it up- it is down to you. I stand to lose £50 due to lack of information on this.

Casper55

Hi Guys
I have just gone with a local installer. and paid the 25% deposit.What most impressed me was taking me to see two systems already installed. One at a house and one in his factory. He even got the ladders out and we went on the roof(flat) to have a close look at the panels.
System details
15 x 245 NU Sharp panels give total max output of 3.6 KW
Fronius IG 40 Inverter
total system costs with labour and new distribution board fitted. £10,150.
The installer is fully acredited with MCS and Real so hopefully everything will go ok.The company has been going for many years last contract 1.5 million last month.
However they have only been doing solar for the past 6 months.
Interestingly he was the only one who pointed out that above this power(3.6KW) Hence the odd number of panels)then permission from NEDL ( local electricity supply Not Scottish Power whom I pay my bills to)would be required and possibly the system would require upgrading which would increase costs. I contacted NEDL who confirmed this.
Anyway just thought I would let you guys know whats going on and what you think.
Best Regards Casper