Solar Panel Guide Discussion

Gizmosmum_2

Cardew wrote: »

pje39 wrote: »

Firstly, to be pedantic pay-back cannot be calculated it is estimated. The estimate will be based on a number of variables.

Secondly I have never heard even the most optimistic salesman claim pay-back in 6 years.- most seem to think 10 to 12 years is a reasonable estimate.

Bear in mind that WHICH recently reported that Solar salesmen are over estimating savings.

Can you please give some figures on which you or the salesman based that estimate. i.e. Cost/size of system, predicted output, price of electricity, interest rates etc.

If you normally use gas or oil to heat your water, using an immersion heater to 'use up' the excess electricity will actually cost you money(instead of saving) for much of the year.

Not sure how I was attributed with this quote but it wasn't me gov honest - I'd neither use PVUKSOLAR or install 2.16kwp system, especially when sold via dodgy salesman!!

Cardew

Gizmosmum wrote: »

Not sure how I was attributed with this quote but it wasn't me gov honest - I'd neither use PVUKSOLAR or install 2.16kwp system, especially when sold via dodgy salesman!!

Weird!

I just pressed 'quote' and that was how it appeared - and I didn't notice that it appeared to credit you with the statement - I have now edited the post.

Sorry - but not my fault Guv!!

Nosht

It seems worth it for the tax free feed-back payment alone.

N.

devondel

my 4kw system on south devon coast cost £12800. all quotes very similar, used a local firm that i am happy to recommend.

been on for 19 days and produced 252kwh, average income £5.79/day. weather quite mixed. had to use gas for water heating twice. main problem is having to watch meter before switching on heavy items eg immersion, washer etc.

WARNING; it can become an obsession!!!

Cardew

devondel wrote: »

my 4kw system on south devon coast cost £12800. all quotes very similar, used a local firm that i am happy to recommend.

been on for 19 days and produced 252kwh, average income £5.79/day. weather quite mixed. had to use gas for water heating twice. main problem is having to watch meter before switching on heavy items eg immersion, washer etc.

WARNING; it can become an obsession!!!

Welcome to the forum.

As you have gas for heating water you need to be very careful about using the immersion heater to heat water as it may well be costing you money.


Basically it means that if at any time your panels are not covering the 3kW consumption of the immersion heater and any other consumption in the house, you will draw power from the mains.

As the mains power is 3+ times more expensive than gas, it doesn't take much to mean you are paying more.

If you look back in some of these posts it is explained in detail.

John_Pierpoint

It depends a bit on how efficient your gas boiler is, especially when running at a load of say 20% of its rated capacity.
Probably best to set the gas to heat the water once or twice a day rather than keep on cycling on and off during 24 hours, just to heat up the boiler.

See above discussion about creating a system to dump excess electricity into the hot water tank(s)

haughtonomous

digitaltoast wrote: »

Er, yes and no. The net loss to the UK over the next 20 years of the solar PV system is £8.2bn. The way the scheme works almost guarantees that the winners will be homesun etc/QUOTE]

Actually the winners will be all of us. Hasn't the penny dropped yet? We can't go on burning up fossil fuels to power our lifestyles, or we will end up not having much of a lifestyle anyway.. So the more homes that generate solar power (even if it doesn't benefit the home owners directly) the better. We are orbiting around a huge nuclear fusion generator, so we might as well make the most of the energy it is pouring towards us, anyway we can. Only fools would not.

All this nonsense about "it will only save you £30 per year" is balony - if someone approached you once a year and thrust £30 into your hands, would you object? (That's a rhetorical question.) I think there are bigger savings at stake. Climates and so on.

I don't spend a lot of time looking at my roof. Frankly I don't care what's up there as long as the roof still works!

haughtonomous

Cardew wrote: »

Welcome to the forum.

As you have gas for heating water you need to be very careful about using the immersion heater to heat water as it may well be costing you money.


Basically it means that if at any time your panels are not covering the 3kW consumption of the immersion heater and any other consumption in the house, you will draw power from the mains.

As the mains power is 3+ times more expensive than gas, it doesn't take much to mean you are paying more.

If you look back in some of these posts it is explained in detail.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you are currently using gas to heat your water, don't change. If solar power reduces your gas consumption to heat the water, that's good; if it doesn't you're no worse off than before. Either way you lose nothing.

digitaltoast

haughtonomous wrote: »

digitaltoast wrote: »

Er, yes and no. The net loss to the UK over the next 20 years of the solar PV system is £8.2bn. The way the scheme works almost guarantees that the winners will be homesun etc

We are orbiting around a huge nuclear fusion generator, so we might as well make the most of the energy it is pouring towards us, anyway we can.

Yes, but we're not "making the most" of it. We're spending £BILLIONS making pitifully and insignificantly small use of it in the most inefficient way possible at the wrong time of day. At least with solar thermal there's a chance it can be stored. With PV, it's money straight down the drain that could be used to insulate houses, provide more efficient boilers etc.

haughtonomous wrote: »

All this nonsense about "it will only save you £30 per year" is balony - if someone approached you once a year and thrust £30 into your hands, would you object?

I don't believe anyone's said £30. I believe the amount quoted is £70 or so. If you're lucky. But £30 or £70, if someone thrust it into my hands and said "I've just taken this from the old lady next door and the hard working family renting their flat", then yes, I'd object. And that's why I object.

There's a big notice by your profile that says "newbie alert". So we'll assume you've missed all the bits where we discuss in depth the technical, ecological and financial failings of this scheme to the deficit of the country as a whole and the benefit of the lucky and wealthy few.

If you're labouring under the mis-apprehension that this is a carbon-reducing scheme, then I'll allow you time to search back through this and the previous threads before making further comment on that particular fallacy. Oh, and have a read of this: http://www.monbiot.com/2010/03/01/a-great-green-rip-off/

John_Pierpoint

haughtonomous wrote: »

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If solar power reduces your gas consumption to heat the water, that's good;

No its not it is completely daft.

Let us suppose it is a normal slightly over cast day:

Your panels are actually generating at the rate of 1.5 KW.
You have the immersion turned on.
The immersion puts 1.5 kW of "free" electricity (actually worth £0.031 pence per unit if you have an export meter and an electricity supplier prepared to read it).
However the immersion needs to get the other 1.5 kW from somewhere.
Hundreds of miles away a standby generator turns on. Basically this is just a big jet engine that burns gas and makes electricity at an efficiency of (say) 50%. By the time the electricity arrives, via miles of wires and two or three transformers, the efficiency is down to 33% (say). That is why day time electricity costs (say) 11p a unit (KWh) as against (say) 3p a unit for gas.

So even though you have created half a tank of hot water with a "free" renewable source, the other half of the tank has required more gas than heating the whole tank with your (say) 80% efficient gas boiler.

Result: Wasted money and extra carbon.