Solar Panel Guide Discussion

Cardew

nande2000 wrote: »

It really annoys me those who say the FITs for PV panels are nothing but a method for the poor to subsidise the middle classes. A few facts these guys always forget to quote are as follows :

Who is it who subsidises nuclear power ? Yes thats right its us the tax payer. Lets not paint solar pv owners as bad people, subsidy is rife in the electric industry.

Secondly buying PV (remember this is not cheap and those that buy dont get given the money overnight) stimulates the economy. On my panel array I made sure I bought Sharp panels that are made in North Wales. Stopping the subsidy means less demand and therefore less jobs. Also remember the more money we can push into the solar industry will create investment in R&D, panels and technology WILL get cheaper.

Who is criticising those cashing in on Solar PV or painting them as bad people? Perhaps you can point to anyone on this thread?

However the fact remains the PV subsidy scheme(FIT) is exactly as you state; namely the poor subsidising the middle class.(or venture capitalists funding Rent a Roof firms)

Your analogy with nuclear subsidies doesn't hold water for, as you state, those subsidies are from the taxpayer.(which includes the rich;))

With FIT, the payments are from a kitty which is funded by a levy on all electricity customers. That includes those pensioners and the poorest in our society who cannot afford PV panels costing upwards of £10,000 and also those living in council property, flats and houses with unsuitable roofs.

P.S.
Your Sharp panels are Japanese, assembled in N Wales for a Japanese firm getting regional grants.

dafranmo

Say £12,000 outlay grosses £27,500 over twenty-five years. Subtract from that maintenance outlay; I believe the free install companies budget around £4,000 for that. Example: the inverter will need to be replaced at least once, probably twice, during the twenty-five year life - at about £1,000 a go.

The return isn't looking quite so good.

The performance of the panels drops off during their life. If they don't need replacing, by the twenty-five year mark their performance will have dropped off by twenty-five percent - with a corresponding decrease in feed-in tariff revenue. If it were a linear degradation, it would reduce the gross income by about £2,000.

If we say maintenance at about £3,000, then our return has gone down to £22,500.

However, there is the reduction in electricity bills. At £130 a year, assuming an increase in bills of 5% per annum, that adds up to about £6,000 over the period. Obviously, if electricity inflation is greater than 5% (which it is currently), then it's worth more.

So, what if we invest our £12,000 instead? Well, if we can find a secure 4% (not to easy currently, but we are looking at twenty-five years), it will gross us getting on for £32,000.

Our secure investment will preserve our capital - so at the end of twenty-five years we'll have £44,000. That's as opposed to a severely depreciating asset on our roof.

A few financial assumptions in this, but it does show that the argument isn't as cut and dried as some would suggest.

by_eck

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

I got cold called today, in spite of being part of the telephone preference service, "number withheld" by a call centre claiming to be "Eco Homes".

Funny thing - Google cannot find an "allinurl" website with ecohomes eco.homes eco-homes eco_homes in a website Uniform Resource Locator, better known as web site address by the rest of us.

Could this be "Replacement.windows" trading as Eco homes or can someone identify the organisation for me?

We did get as far as discussing mounting panels in "landscape" rather than "portrait" any one got observations about the suitability of laying them side ways rather than up and down? [more stress on the panel should the roof "flex" across half a dozen common rafters rather than two or three? More difficult for snow to slide off? Possible problem with self cleaning?]

Arranging panels in landscape orientation may suit the shape of the roof by making better use of the available area. Fitting the panels this way round requires the use of 'cross rails', which are fitted on top of and at right-angles to the main horizontal rails (i.e. vertically). This should be done so that the panels can be clamped on their long edges and not on their short edges, which could lead to greater stresses being placed on the panel frames (as well as possibly invalidating their warranty). It isn't advisable to dispense with the horizontal rails and fit the vertical rails directly onto the rafters, since the array weight would be bourne by significantly fewer rafters.

One effect of fitting cross rails is to raise the overall height of the panels above the roof, which may detract from the visual appearance of the installation.

TrickyDicky101

dafranmo wrote: »

So, what if we invest our £12,000 instead? Well, if we can find a secure 4% (not to easy currently, but we are looking at twenty-five years), it will gross us getting on for £32,000.

Our secure investment will preserve our capital - so at the end of twenty-five years we'll have £44,000.

You've made a mistake there - the £32k already includes the initial £12k capital.

EveWhite

Has anyone tried to buy solar panels for use in conservation areas?

Recommendations? Problems?

Those that object to the current subsidy should consider that firstly, the person making the investment is either tying up their own capital, else borrowing the money to do that and taking a risk they will recoup the original sum borrowed, and secondly, the home owner is unlikely to remain in the property for the length of time necessay to recoup the original outlay.

When they remove the subsidy, it will no longer become reasonable to instal lsolar panels at all.

I would like to know if I can hide solar panels on my south facing roof - also street facing in a (Victorian) conservation area. I know they probably have to give me planning permission, but I would like to keep the neighbours happy too.

Eve

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Who is criticising those cashing in on Solar PV or painting them as bad people? Perhaps you can point to anyone on this thread?

However the fact remains the PV subsidy scheme(FIT) is exactly as you state; namely the poor subsidising the middle class.(or venture capitalists funding Rent a Roof firms)

Your analogy with nuclear subsidies doesn't hold water for, as you state, those subsidies are from the taxpayer.(which includes the rich;))

With FIT, the payments are from a kitty which is funded by a levy on all electricity customers. That includes those pensioners and the poorest in our society who cannot afford PV panels costing upwards of £10,000 and also those living in council property, flats and houses with unsuitable roofs.

P.S.
Your Sharp panels are Japanese, assembled in N Wales for a Japanese firm getting regional grants.

Hi

Actually it would be more accurate to claim that it is everyone (poor, middle class and wealthy) who are providing the subsidy, with that being true whether they have panels or not ...

Regarding other generation subsidies being from the taxpayer and FiT not ... in a way yes, but from a government accounting position I believe that the FiT funding is classified as a tax, even if it is not directly collected by the government the energy firms are acting as an agent for the government for collection & distribution and are paid to do so by being allowed to retain a proportion of the fund.

Sharp panels .... I agree with the OP that it's better to support British jobs where possible. Whether the company receives regional funding or not is another issue, but over 1000 direct employees which probably indirectly supports another 5000+ in supply chain and service providers is not something which can easily be ignored. Almost all final assembly plants, regardless of manufacturing sector, are just that ... assembly plants. It's always been the case that manufacturing have used materials and components on a global sourcing basis and there are very few sectors where this is not the case ... for example, early manufacturing was built on the cotton industry, but the materials were imported, chocolate from York & Birmingham could not have been made without imports, and the list goes on & on.

In my opinion, for what it's worth, anyone who decides to purchase imported goods over items of similar cost & quality which are made in the UK should forfeit their right to complain, moan or whinge about the economy, taxes, unemployment, living conditions, the state of the roads, undermanning of the police and health services, tuition charges, cutting back the armed forces or anything else ... because they themselves are the root cause of the problems which they see, and therefore by definition they are the holders of the solution.

HTH
Z

keith_r59

dafranmo wrote: »

Say £12,000 outlay grosses £27,500 over twenty-five years. Subtract from that maintenance outlay; I believe the free install companies budget around £4,000 for that. Example: the inverter will need to be replaced at least once, probably twice, during the twenty-five year life - at about £1,000 a go.

The return isn't looking quite so good.

The performance of the panels drops off during their life. If they don't need replacing, by the twenty-five year mark their performance will have dropped off by twenty-five percent - with a corresponding decrease in feed-in tariff revenue. If it were a linear degradation, it would reduce the gross income by about £2,000.

If we say maintenance at about £3,000, then our return has gone down to £22,500.

However, there is the reduction in electricity bills. At £130 a year, assuming an increase in bills of 5% per annum, that adds up to about £6,000 over the period. Obviously, if electricity inflation is greater than 5% (which it is currently), then it's worth more.

So, what if we invest our £12,000 instead? Well, if we can find a secure 4% (not to easy currently, but we are looking at twenty-five years), it will gross us getting on for £32,000.

Our secure investment will preserve our capital - so at the end of twenty-five years we'll have £44,000. That's as opposed to a severely depreciating asset on our roof.

A few financial assumptions in this, but it does show that the argument isn't as cut and dried as some would suggest.

It is up to each individual to determine whether Solar PV is a good investment for them and that will generally depend on their own personal financial circumstances.

If you are risk averse, and believe that you can get a better return sticking your money in a savings account, then Solar PV is definitely not for you.

partist

If you've got £10,00 to invest you're much better off investing it in shares of Scottish & Southern Energy.

With solar panels you get a return in free electricity and selling to the grid. But your £10,000 is just about worthless - it's a wasting asset. In 10 years time your £10,000 is worth little or nothing.

But in SSE shares in 10 years your £10,000 should be worth a lot more than £10,000 and you can cash them in whenever you need to. And of course they pay dividends.

If you are putting up panel because you think power prices can only go up, that's even more reason to put your money into power company shares.

mary1

What!!!! free solar panels. I give up live in the North East and can't get any. Then again they are so expensive I couldn't afford to get one if I wanted which I did. This must be aimed at the middle/upper class.

So it looks like I will be turning down the heating and getting the candles out the way prices are rising.

Living in an old bungalow built in the 1920's brrrr its cold. We have cavity wall insulation, new thermal stuff in the loft, one of those new boilers, double glazing and a rated appliances.

TrickyDicky101

partist wrote: »

If you've got £10,00 to invest you're much better off investing it in shares of Scottish & Southern Energy.

With solar panels you get a return in free electricity and selling to the grid. But your £10,000 is just about worthless - it's a wasting asset. In 10 years time your £10,000 is worth little or nothing.

But in SSE shares in 10 years your £10,000 should be worth a lot more than £10,000 and you can cash them in whenever you need to. And of course they pay dividends.

If you are putting up panel because you think power prices can only go up, that's even more reason to put your money into power company shares.

Have you heard of the Feed In Tariff? Just as well the stockmarket doesn't ever crash isn't it?