Solar panels - Deborah Meaden

Freepost

Sol-Energy wrote: »

As an example my roof is directly East. (Far from perfect). I have 16 sharp panels and in there first 4 months they have earnt me £650.00 TAX FREE. I expect to earn at least the same again before the year is out.

Are you saying that with an east facing roof you have generated 1500kWh in the last four months?

F.

Raksha

Doozergirl wrote: »

That's a different scheme. The 'free' energy with the 25 year contract is only free if you're At home to use it when it's sunny or programme appliances to work during the sunny parts of a day. You're not able to store it in any form. I don't think it's worth the small saving for the tie in.

I thought any energy generated and not used by the householder feeds back into the grid and the householder gets paid for it, or am I confused?

ChiefGrasscutter

ChopperST wrote: »

Are they not installed as standard as part of new build properties now? Surely that makes the most financial sense in the long term???

No - what country do you live in!
and not until you can buy (cost effectively) roof tiles which are themselves mini solar panels. So when the roofer lays the tiles on the roof each has a little electric cable/tags which you connect up daisy chain fashion sort of.

Other issues not so far mention with the current set up.
Growth of moss etc underneath the panels on the tiles now that the sun no longer reaches the tiles - Yes they are ugly I agree and they'll need cleaning
Detioration in output over time - though this is allowed for/guestimated in the power output performance data:
Replacement of 'maintenance requiring parts' in the inverter controlling the panels and the costs of that.
Hailstorms don't do the panels a lot of good..

Currently they have to be fitted by an acredited installer (aka rip off merchant). You cannot DIY them and then get the FIT payments.

PS If you are seriously interested in all this google "Navitron forums" and then look for the solar PV and solar thermal sub forums.
Its a good source of general info - though the forum is run by the navitron products group.

edinburgher

Yes they are ugly I agree and they'll need cleaning

I don't have any issue with the appearance of solar panels (granted, if you lived in a conservation area you might be better off with a small array on the ground away from the eyes of the neighbours). Whenever I see them, my typical response is 'good for them saving some money and helping the environment, to boot'. Then again, I don't find wind turbines offensive either

IronWolf

edinburgher wrote: »

In my opinion, this adds an additional degree of complexity that makes them even less suitable for the average investor.

In my example (money sitting in an ISA at a few %), the purchaser no longer has their capital, but gets a dramatically improved return vs the 2-3% they were getting on it previously (say a 7% improvement if we're optimistic).

With your example, the fact that the money is borrowed means that the return drops quite a bit unless the purchaser has access to a very cheap mortgage (say 2.5%). This allows for an optimistic return of 7.5%, which is great for mortgage holders who've been on the ladder for a while. Not so good for someone who's just bought a house (say 5% mortgage, so 5% return).

5% return would be very good for an ISA etc. where you retained the capital, but for a system that you need to have installed on your roof, will require at least some maintenance and will get less efficient with time, I'd rather stick the money in an ISA. I'd also argue that someone who's just bought a house is far less able to see what the future holds for them in terms of staying there vs someone who bought a house 10 years ago and is used to it.

So good for some, but not good for everyone

Not quite, the return doesn't just drop by the interest rate, because the person hasn't had to put up the capital in the first place, which is a big difference. So even if they had the money, they could put it in a savings account, and also get 5% of the value of solar panels without having to tie up capital.

edinburgher

because the person hasn't had to put up the capital in the first place, which is a big difference

Looks like it's time for another coffee

ChopperST

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

No - what country do you live in!

How is that in anyway related to my point of installing them as part of a new build process?

Not interested at all in them as I dont see them as an investment as this is the context they are being discussed in a savings and investment forum. I agree with your points about the panels being the roof tiles themselves.

I dont consider myself an eco warrior at all but anything that generates energy for free in the current day and age and moving into the future needs to be considered, hence my point they are installed as part of new builds, perhaps using some sort of subsidy from the FIT process, (you get free electric - when the sun shines and the spare energy goes towards paying back the cost of the product and installation).

I really dont understand the point of them being "ugly" as a valid argument, the fact that they dont generate sufficient energy to make them economically viable would be a more valid reason. As others have said what about telegraph poles, manhole covers etc? They aren't works of art are they but they have a function to fill.

Owain_Moneysaver

alun4 wrote: »

Is this something you could do ... DIY?

Not if you want the feed in tariff - you have to use a Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) installer to get FIT.

edinburgher

How is that in anyway related to my point of installing them as part of a new build process?

Because if you're living in the UK and think that solar panels are routinely put into new build developments you're either a) not looking at any new developments or b) wildly optimistic.

I have heard of some small developments in the SE that use solar panels to light common areas etc., but I don't think they provide that much of a cost saving (probably just a slight reduction in the bill to the factor/whoever would have paid the bill for lighting these areas in the past).

alun4

ChopperST wrote: »

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

I really dont understand the point of them being "ugly" as a valid argument, the fact that they dont generate sufficient energy to make them economically viable would be a more valid reason. As others have said what about telegraph poles, manhole covers etc? They aren't works of art are they but they have a function to fill.

In investment terms, how desirable/attractive a property is can have an impact on its value. So to save a few hundred/thousand pounds against a loss of ? in sale price. (Maybe I am thinking of them a bit like stone cladding or artex ceilings). Most seem to have the view that the free energy can add value. As yet, it would not .... for me. Yes, even where an electricity sub station is located, what the views are, street lighting, etc are influences on value when you want to sell.