Solar Panel Guide Discussion

zeupater

mo786uk wrote: »

I thought I had asked htis already but seems I didnt post it.

Given there are so many variable sin working out how much energy you will produce - how can you tell if the salesman is being accurate with his figures?

Get multipe quotes?
Ask to see his formula and figures and work it out yourself?

I udnerstand the SAP calculation is a basic one but apparantly there are flaws with it and not everyone uses it........?

Hi

Feed your information into the PVGIS system and check the results against the quotes ..... http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php

Remember to use the 'CLIMATE-SAF PVGIS' dataset as it's more accurate in some areas than the classic version.

HTH
Z

call241

OK there has been lots of discussions about panels and pricing here, but I decided to have them installed I have had ten different company's in to quote on different systems and the result was I could have various makes of panel and inverter but in the end I decided on
16 sanyo HIT N240se10 and a sunny boy 4000tl inverter.
although these are a high end product they give a very high output for there size ,but the down size is the costing of the panels .
some dealers said it was a waste of money paying the premium price, but that's what I want and that's what I am having ( some people drive a Bentley some a fiat they both do the same thing but it is personal choice, and what you want is what you have,(I cant afford a Bentley though))
any way going on to the pricing after having the 10 dealers round I found there was a price difference of 50% in quotes for the same system , they reminded me of the old double glazing salesman, but after a bit of
bartering I got a turn key product for this system for £10980 (inc. scaffolding, vat, paper work, etc.) the installation and service was fantastic ,and two of my neighbors have also booked the same system
others quoted £16.5k. this is the way the sector is going on these prices there has been a massive drop in prices in the last 6 months
I live in Wiltshire
I just want to point out there are good deals out there and take the first price with a pinch of salt.
am I doing my bit for the green party -yes,
but I am also getting a great return on the investment thanks to FITs

John_Pierpoint

Who is going to pay for the new (nuclear?) power stations and the "second" national grid?
My bet is that the government will find a way of pinning a lot of that on the electricity companies.

BornAtTheRightTime

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Who is going to pay for the new (nuclear?) power stations and the "second" national grid?
My bet is that the government will find a way of pinning a lot of that on the electricity companies.

Ultimately, either the tax payer or the bill payer.

M4ximillion

digitaltoast wrote: »

From today's email:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/latesttip/#solar
"Urgent! Free solar subsidy could be slashed"

Some good news - and while this bit is correct:



I'm not so sure about this bit:



It's actually been agreed by EST and Which that an average of £70 is more likely

This is actually what the energy saving trust say now:

How much you could save
The amount of money you will save depends on the proportion of the electricity generated that is used directly in the home, rather than exported to the grid. This will depend on a number of factors, including:

How much electricity you use and when you use it
Whether you are at home and using appliances during the day
Whether you can change the time you use your appliances, for example running your washing machine when it's sunny instead of at night
How big the solar PV installation is
The proportion used in the home may be as low as 25% for a typical PV system, but could be as high as 50% for some users.* With a typical PV system this would mean likely annual savings of £90 to £180.

alterego_2

keith_r59 wrote: »

Will the FITs last 25 years?

Possibly, although I believe the Australian government has already reduced its FIT retrospectively.

As for the panels, here are some 20-year old ones. They don't look a good investment to me...

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/1989-Solar-Park.gif

keith_r59

alterego wrote: »

Possibly, although I believe the Australian government has already reduced its FIT retrospectively.

As for the panels, here are some 20-year old ones. They don't look a good investment to me...

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/1989-Solar-Park.gif

Then I suggest that you don't buy any. Your money, your choice.

orrery

alterego wrote: »

As for the panels, here are some 20-year old ones. They don't look a good investment to me...

The mottled appearance is because they are Polycrystalline panels. The ones at the front look to be damaged, but are the ones closest to the fence, presumably where kids can throw things at them. The ones nearer the back look fine. In any case, in 25 years time when you are £55,000 into profit you'll be able to afford new ones!

grahamc2003

M4ximillion wrote: »

This is actually what the energy saving trust say now:

How much you could save
The amount of money you will save depends on the proportion of the electricity generated that is used directly in the home, rather than exported to the grid. This will depend on a number of factors, including:

How much electricity you use and when you use it
Whether you are at home and using appliances during the day
Whether you can change the time you use your appliances, for example running your washing machine when it's sunny instead of at night
How big the solar PV installation is
The proportion used in the home may be as low as 25% for a typical PV system, but could be as high as 50% for some users.* With a typical PV system this would mean likely annual savings of £90 to £180.

Thanks. i don't know what their original estimate of savings was, but I'd like to see their reasoning of how they worked out £70pa and secondly the evidence and reasoning they used to up that estimate to £90 to £180.

Seems to me that one of those figures must have been plucked out of the air. Certainly their credibility has dropped imo, simply because it's proof they don't mind advising people with information they haven't estimated by some sort of verifiable evidence based means (at least one of their estimates is wrong by a large margin).

The problem is, in all likelyhood, they have no one suitably qualified (that is, a Chartered or European Engineer) to examine whatever scientific data or other reliable evidence they do hold, and make a reaonsable deduction from that. I'm afraid that is a typical situation these days with 'green' organisations.

They say 'the percentage use could be 50% for some users'(or similar). That is correct, as is the statement 'the percentage use could be 100% for some users' - it would certainly be very easy to arrange. But saying those are 'typical' percentages is a different matter and, from my work in the esi over many years, I'd say a 50% usage is not typical at all.

Still, I hope the Energy saving trust will detail the calculations and rational for their new estimates, and also explain the calcs and rational of their previous estimate and why it was so incorrect relative to their new estimate.

alterego_2

orrery wrote: »

The ones nearer the back look fine.

Not to me, but here are some newer ones..

http://notrickszone.com/2011/07/04/weed-covered-solar-park-20-acres-11-million-only-one-and-half-years-old/

Clearly this is an extreme example, but solar panels do need to be kept clean, which isn't always easy if they're on the roof. The cells in a panel are connected in groups in series, which means that if one gets obscured, the whole group stops working. I know this because years ago I was involved with their deployment offshore, where the power output was regularly affected by seagull droppings...

I don't often agree with George Monbiot, but even he's opposed to solar power:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/mar/11/solar-power-germany-feed-in-tariff