Solar Panel Guide Discussion

celerity

Maybe it's just me, but when someone writes "Fact" in bold letters I immediately distrust that the next statement is actually a fact .

digitaltoast wrote: »

Fact: The most likely winners from this scheme are large companies like Homesun.

Debatable, but also irrelevant - most energy subsidies benefit corporates, the FiT is unusual in that some homeowners can also benefit.

Fact: The most likely losers are those in fuel poverty

Everyone that uses electricity will pay. I do accept you have a point though - do you have any references to how much it will increase the average bill? If it is hundreds of pounds a year, I'd be fairly upset as well. I don't think it's that high though.

Fact: The net cost of this scheme is £8.2 *BILLION*

Misleading, "The actual sum raised from the tariff levy from all electricity consumers, not just households, to 2030 will be £6.7bn; it will be spread over 20 years; and it will be more than offset – if the government is true to its word – by energy efficiency savings stimulated in parallel market-building schemes." - source here.

Also, as I've mentioned earlier, over the lifetime of the scheme, this is only something like £335 million pounds per year - that is not significant money on a National scale.

Fact: It hasn't produced the jobs boost that has been suggested

Debatable : in the UK the domestic solar industry has seen a huge boost, with residual extra business for scaffolders, electricians etc.
I think the number of solar installers has risen ten-fold since the FiT, although I must confess I don't have the reference to hand to back this up. If I'm wildly off I trust someone will tell me .

Fact: Germany's experience has been a costly nightmare. We based our FiT on their system.

This is according to a Guardian columnist who may be right, but he also may be wrong. I would hope I've illustrated why in my previous posts.

Fact: Despite Germany's massive subsidies, it hasn't reduced the prices as promised. In fact, the combination of the artificial market and "goldrush" for silicon has actually increased raw material cost.

I'm fairly sure the links I've already posted have demonstrated that the cost of solar PV installs in Germany has been steadily dropping since the FiT.

Fact: Generating electricity via PV at our latitude is one of, if not the most, inefficient and unreliable methods there is.

Technical efficiency is irrelevant, it's the cost per kWh generated that is important. This is, I freely concede, high at present - but it will fall over time. That is vital to the debate, as non-renewable energy costs are, I think it's fair to say, widely acknowledged to continue rising.

It's also not fair to say solar PV is "unreliable". Provided the average output can be predicted each year, it is still a useful technology. Nobody is saying it will solve all our energy needs, but if it can become a useful addition to our renewable energy network then I'm in favour.

Fact: Solar PV will not result in one single fossil fired power station being taken offline, and the carbon savings are infinitesimally small.

I think you are alluding to renewable energy requiring traditional power as backup (when the sun isn't shining, the wind isn't blowing etc). This is true, but a) as national grid infrastructure and technology improves, less reserve power will be needed and b) the more renewables we have, the less *fossil fuel* will be burned in your power stations. Surely that is a Good Thing?

Fact: Solar PV produces most electricity when it's not needed, and precisely zero when it's most needed.

Technically correct on a national scale, but misleading. The solar PV energy produced by a system either gets used in the property it is sited on, or is used by the rest of the nation via the national grid.
Also, many businesses will need energy during the day, not night.
Again, you are using an argument that strongly implies that solar PV is being touted as a panacea for all our energy needs. It's not, it's just one component of a greener energy strategy.

Feel free to question any of the above if you're unsure, once you've searched the threads here (all the above have been covered at length).

They have been covered at length, but it would be wrong to imply the debate has been settled, as it hasn't .

I'd love nothing more than for someone, anyone, to solidly prove any of the above to be wrong. It'd be a first though!

I sincerely don't think it's possible to prove the broader points one way or the other - I think it's a "time will tell" situation.
Hopefully some of my counter-arguments have been interesting to you anyway.

I'd like to reiterate that I do actually share a number of your doubts, so am by no means a solar PV zealot .

/\dam

digitaltoast

celerity wrote: »

In the interests of balance, it is only fair for anyone who reads Monbiot's blog as a means to back up their own viewpoint, that they also look at some rebuttals to his arguments. For example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/18/solar-energy-feed-in-tariffs-monbiot

That last link is a rebuttal from Jeremy Leggett.

Let's put the two authors together:

George Monbiot:

In 1995 Nelson Mandela presented him with a United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement. A radio programme he produced won a Sony Award for best documentary.

He has held visiting fellowships or professorships at the universities of Oxford (environmental policy), Bristol (philosophy), Keele (politics), Oxford Brookes (planning) and East London (environmental science). He has honorary doctorates from the University of St Andrews and the University of Essex and an Honorary Fellowship from Cardiff University.

Jeremy Leggett:

Jeremy Leggett later became the founder and is currently executive chairman of Solarcentury, the UK’s largest independent solar electric company. He also serves as a founding director of the world's first private equity fund for renewable energy

No vested interests there, then...

celerity wrote: »

As a counter-argument to "The FiT was a colossal failure in Germany" I submit the following report.
I don't pretend that it is unbiased, but as so few of these reports are, but it is worth a read: http://www.hermannscheer.de/en/images/stories/pdf/WFC_Feed-in_Tariffs_jun07.pdf

A representative sample:

German achievements in figures:

• 214,000 jobs created
• 97 million tonnes of CO2 emissions avoided in 2006 through renewables

etc

Bzzzt! You're comparing chalk and cheese - the list above is ALL renewables. Solar counts for a large part of some items (the subsidies) and a small part of others (the contribution to the grid).

Also:

A 2009 study from RWI Essen of the effects of the Renewable Energy Sources Act concluded that:
using photovoltaics in emission reduction is 53 times more expensive than the European Union Emission Trading Scheme's market price, while wind power is 4 times more expensive, thereby discouraging other industries from finding more cost-effective methods of reducing emissions;
although renewable energy subsidies increase retail electricity rates by 3%, they reduce the profits of German electrical utilities by an average of 8%, making them less competitive with other European utilities;
despite lavish subsidies, Germany's photovoltaic industry is losing its market share to other countries, particularly China and Japan;
it stifles renewable energy innovation by arbitrarily awarding subsidies to different technologies, instead of according to their cost-effectiveness.[27

John_Pierpoint

poloplace834 wrote: »

If I take 12000 put it in a 4percent ISA in 25 years i have 32000

If I spend 12000 on a solar system in 25 years I sace 25000

Am I not 7000 worse off?

With Inflation at 5% - perhaps not.

celerity

poloplace834 wrote: »

If I take 12000 put it in a 4percent ISA in 25 years i have 32000

If I spend 12000 on a solar system in 25 years I sace 25000

Am I not 7000 worse off?

If your figures are correct, then yes, you are .

I guess a few counter-arguments would be:
- ideally you'd want to invest in solar PV *and* top up your full ISA allowance each year
- solar PV is viewed by many as a hedge against future electricity price hikes
- you might not get 4% in your ISA for the duration of your investment.

/\dam

digitaltoast

celerity wrote: »

Misleading, "The actual sum raised from the tariff levy from all electricity consumers, not just households, to 2030 will be £6.7bn; it will be spread over 20 years; and it will be more than offset – if the government is true to its word – by energy efficiency savings stimulated in parallel market-building schemes." - source here.

I'm just going on the government's own official whitepaper:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Consultations/Renewable%20Electricity%20Financial%20Incentives/1_20100204103559_e_@@_FITsImpactAssessmentaccompanyingGovernmentResponse.pdf

Price Base Year: 2008
Time Period Years: 20
NET BENEFIT (NPV Best estimate)
£ -8.2bn

Net cost to consumers/net cost to the economy... you say tomatoes/potatoes (etc).

celerity wrote: »

Also, as I've mentioned earlier, over the lifetime of the scheme, this is only something like £335 million pounds per year - that is not significant money on a National scale.

I think Graham put it at around 15% increase on bills. If everyone is shrieking about how the extra 2.5% on VAT (a tax which hits the poor least) will "kill the economy" because of the extra couple of pence on a Twix, imagine what 15% on an unavoidable cost which accounts for the item which hits the poor most, will do.

Try telling cancer research labs/hospitals/teachers that £335 million is not a significant amount. That's a helluva lot of insulation, too.

K4blades

digitaltoast wrote: »

Fact: The most likely winners from this scheme are large companies like Homesun.

By large company do you mean a company that employs people, (who pay tax), there for contradicting Fact 4.

Fact: The most likely losers are those in fuel poverty

Wrong, several people including me, have posted examples of social landlords using FITs to finance putting PVs on their properties giving their tenants reduced fuel bills, even if its only a saving of £70.00 a year, this is much more than the cost of FITs on the fuel bill, and worth relatively more if you are poor.

Also, if councils benefit from FITs profits, the wider community can benefit then, from better services or reduced council tax.

When I have raised these points before they have been ignored but that hardly makes YOUR OPINION a fact.

Fact: The net cost of this scheme is £8.2 *BILLION*

Which is disputable, but as Adam points out, is relatively small. How much are the new nuclear power stations going to cost.

How much extra are we going to be paying on our bills for oil / gas as demand changes in the coming years.

Fact: It hasn't produced the jobs boost that has been suggested

There are thousands now working in the PV industry that weren't 18 months ago. As suggested by your first FACT.

Fact: Germany's experience has been a costly nightmare. We based our FiT on their system.

Depends on your viewpoint. Many think the scheme was scrapped because it was TOO SUCCESSFUL, and there for, too expensive to run. Either way, Germany have declared that they intend to phase out nuclear within the next 20 years or so...something we are along way from being able to say.

Fact: Despite Germany's massive subsidies, it hasn't reduced the prices as promised. In fact, the combination of the artificial market and "goldrush" for silicon has actually increased raw material cost.

Read the threads on this subject. Over the past 12-18 months, quotes for installations have fallen dramatically, and everyone expects prices to continue to fall.
Its called market forces.

Fact: Generating electricity via PV at our latitude is one of, if not the most, inefficient and unreliable methods there is.

But better than nothing when the Chinese, Russians, Indians etc are buying up all the oil and gas.

Fact: Solar PV will not result in one single fossil fired power station being taken offline, and the carbon savings are infinitesimally small.

But may mean new ones not being built, or smaller ones, and the ones we do have, will have to burn less fossil fuels. Also, PV may not be very efficient, but approx. 10% of electricity produced is wasted through the distribution via the national grid. Hardly very efficient either.

It is also widely accepted that having PV on your roof changes your behaviour, itself meaning less electricity needs to be generated by the grid.

Fact: Solar PV produces most electricity when it's not needed, and precisely zero when it's most needed.

Demand will continue to grow, (eg electric cars), as will usage patterns as the population ages, people using technology to work from home, etc, and better technology to control or store produced electricity means your comment is very short sighted.


Feel free to question any of the above if you're unsure, once you've searched the threads here (all the above have been covered at length).

And often points have been ignored unless it fits in with their particular view.

I'd love nothing more than for someone, anyone, to solidly prove any of the above to be wrong. It'd be a first though!

No it wouldn't.
On a separate website I've just read a very amusing blog about people who confuse facts with their opinions...I can't link to it as it was very offensive.

jpmcc

Louise_Walker wrote: »

Hello,

Anyway, my husband and I are retired and want solar panels. We have a big roof but not a particularly big budget. We looked at free offers but decided that buying was probably better. We had real problems getting prices, and from the article I guess we're not the only ones. The best ones we have so far are from isis solar. I've listed them below and wondered if anyone had better ones they could share?

We paid £16,763 inc VAT for a 3.87 kwp system last November. Prices have come down since then. The good news is that the system has generated just over target to the end of June, despite the not very wonderful summer here in the north-west of England. So in our experience the calculators are pretty accurate (e.g. Google for "cat solar pv calculator").

One tip - make sure your system has a 'live' display of what's happening in the system. Beats watching the telly.

Good luck - John

K4blades

digitaltoast wrote: »

.
On the rent-your-roof-out-for-25-years scheme, the best you can hope for is £70 a year in savings.

And while we are on the subject of FACTS, this isn't one.
EST said £70.00 was typical but with a larger system could be significantly more.

I don't know if your comment was a genuine mistake, deliberately mis-leading, or an out right lie...but its not a fact!

Cardew

poloplace834 wrote: »

If I take 12000 put it in a 4percent ISA in 25 years i have 32000

If I spend 12000 on a solar system in 25 years I sace 25000

Am I not 7000 worse off?

Welcome to the forum.

What you have missed is you will save money each year, say, £1000 in the first year.

You then invest this at the same interest rate as you have used above(4% in an ISA).

The following year with inflation at, say, 3.5% you get £1035 and this is invested as above etc etc.

At some point in time this drip fed account will be equal in value to your invested £12,000.

To estimate when that 'break even' point will occur you have to make assumptions for
1. future interest rates,

2. inflation rates,

3.fuel inflation rates,

4. repairs/replacements of PV system components,

5. repairs to roof?(scaffolding).

6. cleaning panels of grime/bird droppings etc - some people say it is essential, others disagree.

7. Make an allowance for the reduced output of panels as they age.

As Adam states above the best guess of most informed people is that you will break even around the 12 year point, and then it is all profit.

jpmcc

poloplace834 wrote: »

If I take 12000 put it in a 4percent ISA in 25 years i have 32000

If I spend 12000 on a solar system in 25 years I sace 25000

Am I not 7000 worse off?

No. Here's why.

If you put £12,000 in a 4% ISA you will have £31,990 after 25 years.

Your £12,000 would buy you a 3.5kW(p) system, which if you live in London and have a south facing roof at a slope of 30 degrees, should gain you about £1,500 a year. If you invest that money in a 4% ISA every year and leave it there, then at the end of 25 years you'll be sitting on £66,468. You'll be £34,478 better off.

In fact, you don't need to wait 25 years. You will be better off from year 9 onwards (£18,009 in a solar powered ISA versus £17,080 in an ordinary one). That's what people mean when they say the system pays back after 8 or 9 years.

If you have the money to invest, a suitable roof, and you won't moving in the next ten years, it's a no brainer.

John
p.s. If you have moral scruples about where the money is coming from then you are probably on the wrong site