Solar Panel Guide Discussion

thenudeone

Elainemary wrote: »

If each household is paying this then whether you pay for PV or get them free they ( according to these figures ) won't be profitable.

Elainemary wrote: »

So ( they say ) a typical family makes approx £800 pa doing this.

Your numbers are wrong.
A 4kw system costing c. £12 should produce 3000-3500kWh pa x 43.3p FIT payment = £1300 to £1500 in FIT payments

Plus if 25% is used in the home, a reduction in imported electricity of 25% x 3000 x 10p per unit =£75 pa saving

Plus export income (deemed) 50% x 3000 x 3.1p =£46 pa

So an investment of £12000 provides an income of £1400 - £1600 pa (not £800). That's quite a good return in my book and definitely "profitable".

The extra cost of implementing anti-climate change measures that every household will be paying (£300 sounds far too high to me) is not relevant to the individual decision on solar PV, because it will happen anyway.

K4blades

Cardew wrote: »

You are a little confused in this post.

You are correct that the EST have dowgraded their estimate of typical usage in the home to 25%; and they estimate this will give typical savings of £70 a year. That obviously means some will save more and others less.

Where you are wrong is that all generated electricity - regardless of used or exported - gets a FIT payment of 43.1P per kWh.

They also currently get an additional 3.1p per kWh for 50% of the generated total.

I don't understand this 'They are also paid about 35p per kWh for what they use.' They are paid nothing, but the electricity they use is worth whatever the Tier 2 price costs on the tariff they use - around 10p per kWh.

Similarly you use in the evening tier 2 priced electricity at around 10p/kWh - you should ignore the tier 1 price.

Cardew, I think here, you have posted a very balanced and fair post, stick to things like this and you'll get more respect from me.....though I doubt you care about that....but what I'm getting at is that you can make a valid argument without having to say, what I think, is mis-leading comments. Thank you.

K4blades

thenudeone wrote: »

The extra cost of implementing anti-climate change measures that every household will be paying (£300 sounds far too high to me) is not relevant to the individual decision on solar PV, because it will happen anyway.

I think the cost of FITs for the first year worked out at about £1.00 per household, not factoring any contributions from businesses.
This will increase in the short term as there will be more installations, though longer term of course, the actual rate will fall.
On top of that, there are costs for other renewables but I doubt it will add up to anything like what some people think.
There are also costs that will have to be met anyway....the grid is in need of updating, nuclear plants need replacing, etc, etc, so not all increases are down to "being green" or "climate change"

Consider that with costs of fossil fuels, BG today announcing an increase in bills that will average about £200 for 1 year due to demand on wholesale of gas and oil. That demand is going to soar in the coming years, and supply will tighten as reserves get more difficult to get to.

Its not too far fetched to imagine that, 10 years from now, a bill of £1000 today, will be costing £2000 then. So comparisons with current inflation rates are a bit meaningless. IMO, the more we can do to cushion that blow, the better, so a few extra pounds on our bills now may be money well spent.

Unless that is, you will be happy to go days without any electricity, put up with thousands of pensioners dying because they won't switch their heating on, and not be able to drive anywhere due to the crippling price of petrol.

John_Pierpoint

"Consider that with costs of fossil fuels" nothing to do with the policy of devaluing our currency then?

Gizmosmum_2

For those debating about whether to buy their pv or not - setting aside moral, ethical and climate views here is my experience so far:

Bought 3.96kwp Sharp panels (SMA inverter) at the end of Oct 2010.
Generated 200kwh up to Feb 2011
Total generated to date 2300kwh
Currently being generated 8w - we're in the middle of a thunderstorm.
Normal start up time at this time of year 5.10am and close down 9pm

Location England/Scotland border
Orientation ESE

Electricity saved - I haven't a scooby! Electricity saved is very much a bonus, I work from home so will possibly save a it more than most but I'm not too worried about it, we're pretty efficient anyway so savings will be limited.

My payback will be around 10/11 years (excluding electricity) and I'll need to add a bit in if I need to replace the inverter - for me that was acceptable for others it may not be.

When I'm accused of being middle class and exploiting the fuel poor (for whom I worked very hard for 15 years) I look to my tennant who now has solar panels on his roof and his 50" tv set which is twice the size of mine, the digital tv subscription which is double mine and his prepayment meter because he can't afford his electric bills. We all make our choices. His concern this week was how quickly the scaffolding would be taken down so he could watch his cinema size tv!

Cardew

I understand your sentiments - and I am possibly the biggest offender!

However why is the thread derailed? Surely on a Money Saving website anyone considering a ‘Rent a Roof’ system and reading this thread for advice, wants to know how much the system is likely to save them on their bills.

This thread has been visited over 1,200 times – could many of those visits be from people seeking that advice?

The firms either refuse to give a figure or, according to WHICH, exaggerate savings!

When asked if they agree with the Energy Saving Trust typical savings figure of £70 pa they procrastinate.

It seems to me perfectly reasonable that these companies should be challenged to provide some supportable evidence.

bazz_cargo

Hi everyone, pleased to make your acquaintance.


I know I'm new to this forum but I really would like to see if there is anyone out there who doesn't think I'm an idiot.





If we did not try this, will we still have a planet to live on ?
If we try this and fail, will we still have a planet to live on ?
If we try this an succeed, will we still have a planet to live on ?


A Greener Convention.




There are many examples of how the cooperative movement has given the individual the strength to defend themselves against the might of big business, it is now time to consider a cooperative scheme to change the way we deal with the energy crisis.


How ?


Ask everyone in the country to chip in.
If you could get individuals to part with a small sum of money each, and use it to invest in a major alternative energy push, you could change the sloow tortuous progress we have made so far, into a more energetic cantor.




Of course there is an alternative to watching ever increasing energy bills, of course there is a way to meet or even exceed the reduction in carbon dioxide our government has pledged us too. Use the free market. Go into competition with The Vested Interests directly. There is no need to bother with a compromised government.
Details
For a one off small sum of money, you can register your home in a national lottery. When you are lucky enough to be drawn, the house will be pimped up green style.
Solar panels, geo thermal heating, water reclamation, wind turbine. Part of the Idea is to facilitate an interest free loan without the stringent rules the current system has. The repayments will be set at a reasonable rate.
Part of the idea is to turn every home in the country in to a net exporter of energy.
When enough houses are made over, and the volume of repayments is large enough, you can consider local Combined Heat And Power stations, Anaerobic Digester's, Hydrogen car refuelling points, and other small scale projects. These to should bring more money into the pot. Once enough cash is flowing it could be used to change industries power supplies.


Important Points
1/ It has to be entirely voluntary. It can be run in a business like manner, but if it is run as a business, vast sums of money will be bled out of it and the whole thing will slow to a crawl.
2/ All the funds raised are too be used in projects to benefit the environment.
3/ Nothing is to be borrowed.
4/ Funds could be used to kick start commercial projects, but only if they meet a criteria. The larger part of the business profits are to be used to benefit the community.
5/ No investing or trading on any stockmarket.
6/ Individuals, organisations, clubs, unions and anyone else could add donations to the scheme.
7/ Individuals, organisations, clubs, unions and other interested parties would provide local help to see the work was done, and done well.


Benefits


Reduction of greenhouse gases.
Reduction of other pollutants.
Work for local artisans. Keeping money in the community.
Smaller bills, means less work stress and more opportunity to enjoy family life.
No big power stations ( especially nuclear ones ).
A different ethos, less competitive, more co-operative.
If it worked, the pattern could be used in almost every country in the world, creating wealth in poorer regions and reducing forced economic migration.
Fuel security.
Reduction in tax avoidance.
Millions more people paying tax means a bigger tax take.
A market this big would cause a massive world wide increase in competition, and innovation.
A massive reduction in the imbalance of the import / export figures.
No more dealing with oil rich Autocracy’s.


Problems


This is a massive project. It would need a serious team to put it together and run it.
The vested interest’s will fight it all the way.
It could fall flat on it’s face and fail.
Taxation would have to be re-thought.
A lot of big industries will change or shrink dramatically.




A Last Thought


This is a big deal it could restart a whole new industrial revolution. It could mean a real redistribution of wealth, and a powerful shot into the arm of the economy.

Cardew

RussGreen wrote: »

If i save 20p a day it a bonus .

If you are content renting your roof on a 25 year agreement for 20p a day(£73 a year) - which corresponds to the EST estimate - then well done!

Myself and others simply want other people to be given some accurate information so they can make a judgement if the system suits themselves.

I can fully understand why people who have a vested interest in promoting 'Rent a Roof' systems will get annoyed with any attempt to put savings into perspective.

zeupater

RussGreen wrote: »

Mr Cardew you seem negative on every thread towards a shade greener what is your problem.
You have hijacked this from people who just want to report there experience dealing with this company.
You keep bringing up the money card all the time but we are people who could not afford to buy our panels so why bring this up its not relevant.
If i save 20p a day it a bonus so get a life and leave us all to get on with our decision to have free panels by this company.
You annoyed every one on the other threads you commented on what is the matter, are you bored with life and just a busybody who got turned down on some free solar panels.

Russ.

Hi Russ

As it stands, the issue is that not everyone has the same outlook as yourself. If you are happy with a 20p a day saving on electricity from taking a decision to have a 'rent-a-roof' system then that's fine, as long as you understand that there are potential pitfalls it's entirely up to you. However, there are a number of installers of both 'rent-a-roof' and owned systems who, when 'selling' their systems, claim that savings from such systems are typically well over £200, sometimes up to £400+, which, you must admit, is a little unlikely to be classified as typical and is therefore a 'misleading' sales tactic.

The OFT classification of a misleading advert is ..... 'An advert is misleading if it deceives or is likely to deceive its audience and affect their economic decision-making'
and their classification of what constitutes a misleading advert is .....
'A misleading advertisement can be a spoken statement - eg, given by a sales representative, in person or over the phone. It does not have to be in writing.'
and their examples of what is classified as a misleading deception include
'contains a false statement of fact - this may be possible to prove or disprove by evidence' / 'conceals or leaves out important facts' / 'creates a false impression, even if everything stated in it may be literally true.'

Considering the above, it is likely that without being in possession of accurate information regarding the likely savings from having solar pv, many who would be expecting considerably more than 20p/day savings would consider that they had been mislead before entering into a contract .... it would be interesting to see what effect a ruling on this would have on the continued validity of 'rent-a-roof' sector contracts if/when challenged.

Due to both the lack of data analysis and collation transparency which the industry is willing to supply I feel that it is fit & proper for a balanced and reasoned alternative view of the likely pv savings which can be expected is made available, especially as the figures are broadly in line with officially approved figures (EST).

If this view and position causes a problem to the industry, it is up to the individual companies to challenge the level of savings which are being advised by the EST, Which ? and many who already have pv systems ...... either that or publish their own data and analysis for all to see, and of course agree or dispute, but at least everything would be open .....

Perhaps, purely from the point of view of maintaining the long term validity of long term contracts, the 'rent-a-roof' operators should agree and publish a structured & reasonable schedule of typical savings instead of classifying the data & information as being commercially sensitive.....

I have structured this post to be informative and constructive and believe that it could only be classified as being negative by industry insiders, with their obvious vested interests, or someone who would find it necessary to take a contrary position for the sake of argument.

HTH
Z

bengasman

A very old adage states that there is no free lunch.
Free installation of free energy supply equipment sounds too good to be true, which probably means it is.