Solar Panel Guide Discussion

LittleVermin

billywhy wrote: »

Any chance of a link to this?

Here: http://asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2012/2/Ice-Energy-Heat-Pumps-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_163951.aspx

Basically, the ASA has said that the cost of the panels must be paid off first i.e. people are not getting x% return on investment right away - as they would if they put their money into a savings account rather than into solar panels - and, in future, ads need to say this.
..

Martyn1981

SteveB wrote: »

The ‘Written ministerial statement by Chris Huhne on Feed-in Tariffs’ dated 26 January 2012 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/chrishuhne_fit/chrishuhne_fit.aspx has a nasty sting at the end:

‘We are also intending to publish the Government’s response to the other aspects of the phase 1 consultation that are not affected by the Judicial Review (namely the proposals on energy efficiency and for multi-installation tariff rates).’

If I read this correctly, if your installation is after the 11th December 2011 your house must be energy efficient no mater which way the appeal goes. The proposal is that non energy efficient houses will only get a Generation Tariff of 9p a unit, not even 21p. Again, as far as I can see, the Feed In Tariff of half of 3.1p is still paid on top of the Generation Tariff.

I'll have to check, but I thought the key date for the EPC (energy performance certificate) C rating requirement was the 1/4/12. But you may be right.

Basically, to get the full FIT rate your property will have to have a C energy rating (extremely hard), or you'll have had to carry out all of the requirements to improve your property - anyone who's seen an EPC recently will know that they carry a list of suggestions, from fitting low energy bulbs, through to a more efficient boiler (as appropriate). The green deal is there, or will be there, to help with up front costs I think?

Will do some searching and update.

Mart.

Stec123

Does anyone know how to check how much is being exported from my Elster as230 the display has C.U.M which I take it will be cumulative, E which I thought might be exported which is 0 kwh which I can't believe nothing has been exported and DEM is the last display. This is a rent a roof scheme installation and the cumulative figures match that on the sunny boy in the loft. Any help in clearing this up would be appreciated

billywhy

LittleVermin wrote: »

Bsically, the ASA has said that the cost of the panels must be paid off first i.e. people are not getting x% return on investment right away - as they would if they put their money into a savings account rather than into solar panels - and, in future, ads need to say this.

Thanks for the link.
So my understanding is that it is a 'wording issue' and the 'ROI' (if this is the 'wording' in question) will have to change or a footnote issued to include that the cost of the product would have to be recouped before any financial game is made. Every company that I have contact with always include the ROI date which makes this bloody obvious.
Not what some of the anti-solar brigade would like you to believe i.e. that returns are a pack of lies.

Oopsadaisy

billywhy wrote: »

Not what some of the anti-solar brigade would like you to believe i.e. that returns are a pack of lies.

It is a pack of lies.

The solar sales model/pitch is similar to a Ponzi scheme.....

Give me £15,000 today and I'll give you back £1000 for the next ten years...at which point your investment will be worthless and the £1000 eroded by inflation and maintenance/repairs.

Cardew

SteveB wrote: »

The ‘Written ministerial statement by Chris Huhne on Feed-in Tariffs’ dated 26 January 2012 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/chrishuhne_fit/chrishuhne_fit.aspx has a nasty sting at the end:

‘We are also intending to publish the Government’s response to the other aspects of the phase 1 consultation that are not affected by the Judicial Review (namely the proposals on energy efficiency and for multi-installation tariff rates).’

If I read this correctly, if your installation is after the 11th December 2011 your house must be energy efficient no mater which way the appeal goes. The proposal is that non energy efficient houses will only get a Generation Tariff of 9p a unit, not even 21p. Again, as far as I can see, the Feed In Tariff of half of 3.1p is still paid on top of the Generation Tariff.

Even better,the 'mult-installation' review might put some of the Rent A Roof Companies out of the picture!

Cardew

billywhy wrote: »

Thanks for the link.
So my understanding is that it is a 'wording issue' and the 'ROI' (if this is the 'wording' in question) will have to change or a footnote issued to include that the cost of the product would have to be recouped before any financial game is made. Every company that I have contact with always include the ROI date which makes this bloody obvious.
Not what some of the anti-solar brigade would like you to believe i.e. that returns are a pack of lies.

I tend to agree that it is a semantic issue, as most people investing £10k or more will understand what is meant by ROI in that context. Indeed the Government on the introduction of FIT and subsequent reduction in rates, referred to a 'Return of x%'.

However many of these firms(not all) are guilty of over-estimating the percentage used in the house; sometimes using a figure of 100% of generated output and pricing each kWh at the composite ofgem figure -which takes into account standing charges/tier 1 rates.

That, together with over-estimates of annual generation can make the returns 'a pack of lies'.

I find the term 'anti-solar brigade' amusing. Who can possibly be against a clean non-poluting energy source?

So does opposing the FIT system make one anti-solar in your book?

I detest the policies and actions of the Israeli Government - does that make me anti-semetic?

billywhy

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

It is a pack of lies.

The solar sales model/pitch is similar to a Ponzi scheme.....

Give me £15,000 today and I'll give you back £1000 for the next ten years...at which point your investment will be worthless and the £1000 eroded by inflation and maintenance/repairs.

Not familiar with the 'Ponzi scheme' and the example you give would not make financial sense even to the 'not so bright amongst us'.

Heres a better example.
Give me £9000 today and Ill give you back £25000 plus your £9000 (total of £34000) split over a 25 year period. Dont worry about inflation because I will link it to that and there may be a small amount of maintenance. But shouldnt cost more than £1500 approx over the period. It will also be tax free.
(all figures approx, but not far of the current 'return' model).

billywhy

I find the term 'anti-solar brigade' amusing. Who can possibly be against a clean non-poluting energy source?

So does opposing the FIT system make one anti-solar in your book?

I detest the policies and actions of the Israeli Government - does that make me anti-semetic?[/QUOTE]

Try having a renewables conversation with somebody working in other areas of the renewables industry. I call it 'renewables envy' as the uptake of solar has smashed the others into the minority (and taken most of the FIT budget). Those 'intrusive' wind boys are the worst! Some I have had conversations with actually believe there is some kind of conspiracy and believe that all PV reliability and efficiency figures have been fabricated.

The_Green_Hornet

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

It is a pack of lies.

The solar sales model/pitch is similar to a Ponzi scheme.....

Give me £15,000 today and I'll give you back £1000 for the next ten years...at which point your investment will be worthless and the £1000 eroded by inflation and maintenance/repairs.

If Solar PV is a Ponzi scheme then I think someone should inform the venture capitalists who backed the rent-a-roof companies that they aren't going to get their millions back.

And here was me thinking they knew something about finance and investment returns...