Solar Panel Guide Discussion

KevinG

grannyjo wrote: »

http://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14307.30.html
On navitron web site there is a lot of discussion about the legality of estimating the amount of electricity that fed back into a meter that goes backwards. Apparently OFGEM has written guidelines and they disaprove of companies deciding to estimate the amount. did a search on meter running backward and there were 2 main sections.

Whenever this issue comes up I do not understand why people cannot see how simple it should be. The only sensible basis on which to estimate an overpayment is to take 50% of the amount generated and charge for that number of units. Previous consumption has got absolutely nothing to do with it.

Dave_Fowler

KevinG wrote: »

Whenever this issue comes up I do not understand why people cannot see how simple it should be. The only sensible basis on which to estimate an overpayment is to take 50% of the amount generated and charge for that number of units. Previous consumption has got absolutely nothing to do with it.

I agree, and as (I think) most people export just over 50% of the generated power, the repayment would be just under what is 'owed'.

Dave F

zeupater

Dave_Fowler wrote: »

I agree, and as (I think) most people export just over 50% of the generated power, the repayment would be just under what is 'owed'.

Dave F

Hi

[STRIKE]
Just under ? .... surely, if the export was 'just over 50%', the money owed would be the repayment would be just over ... ?
[/STRIKE]
Anyway, it's highly likely that most will export closer to 75% than 50%, consuming somewhere around 25%-30% (experience on these forums & EST sources) .... charging 50% of generation as being the estimated benefit would just give people an incentive to chase their supplier to get the meter changed ....

HTH
Z

##EDIT ... see next two posts ....

KevinG

zeupater wrote: »

Just under ? .... surely, if the export was 'just over 50%', the money owed would be the repayment would be just over ... ?

No, I think what Dave wrote was correct, if the supplier assessed the amount owing based on exporting 50% and you actually exported 75%, the amount you repaid would be under what is actually owed.

zeupater wrote: »

Anyway, it's highly likely that most will export closer to 75% than 50%, consuming somewhere around 25%-30% (experience on these forums & EST sources) .... charging 50% of generation as being the estimated benefit would just give people an incentive to chase their supplier to get the meter changed ....

I suppose this is correct, based on the assumption that they are eventually going to catch up with you and charge you from year zero, but until then you are better off with a backwards-running meter however much is actually being exported.

zeupater

KevinG wrote: »

No, I think what Dave wrote was correct, if the supplier assessed the amount owing based on exporting 50% and you actually exported 75%, the amount you repaid would be under what is actually owed.

Of course it is ... I was thinking of export as having no benefit, not as being a negative import .... sorry Dave , thanks KevinG .....

Z

jetski690

KevinG wrote: »

I suppose this is correct, based on the assumption that they are eventually going to catch up with you and charge you from year zero, but until then you are better off with a backwards-running meter however much is actually being exported.

What's to say you change energy supplier every year once you've left it's in the bag and they would be none the wiser.

sadowska

I appreciate this thread has moved on from feeding back on the MSE guide. Also sorry if this has been covered but I haven't gone through every post here.
Just a practical question - the MSE guide mentions that taking out a loan to install PV is likely to be a bad idea. However even though I'm in the fortunate position that I could in theory pay out of my savings account, I'm still including the cost of borrowing in my calculations (likely to be higher over 25 years than any savings interest I could get!). That's because my savings could otherwise go towards paying off my mortgage.
Unless I'm missing some crucial point (*brace*) it would surely be helpful for MSE to point out that anyone with a mortgage should consider this cost when they calculate their return on a solar system?

John_Pierpoint

Very good point, much debated on here.

The mortgage and the panels are a long term commitment and both depend on the rate of inflation versus the rate of interest and "safety" of the government legislation that underlies the subsidy and inflation guarantee for the FiT payments.

Someone with a mortgage has decided that in 25 years they would rather be personally responsible for property taxes, maintenance and the transactional problems of moving, rather than paying a rent to use someone else's pile of bricks.
They have (subconsciously) make the decision that inflation will make them richer and their debts smaller.
The same decision applies to the panels, though the panels are likely to require more maintenance per invested pound, than the brick and tile structure on which they are mounted.

Remember Inheritance tax starts at 40% on everything you own if it totals over £325K.

Personally, I see "inflation" as the only solution to our present financial problems, so the choice is yours: stuff grey and yellow metal under your floorboards or put eco bling on your roof.

The_Green_Hornet

The general rule is that unless you can get a better rate of interest on your savings / investments than what you are paying on your mortgage then the wisest course of action would be to pay off your home loan.

lanstrom

Does the power one inverter actually come on during gloomy foggy days like today ?

My Fronius IG is currently showing 135w but I am sure I read somewhere that the power one doesn't come on till there is at least 180w available ... Or did I imagine it ?

Only asking as I was offered a choice of either.

Thanks.