Solar panels - Deborah Meaden

ChopperST

alun4 wrote: »

ChopperST wrote: »

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.

Absoutely take your point, I feel they would have more of an impact on green belt areas and peroid properties. New builds are hardly designed to be "with character" shall we say, the asthetics will have more of an impact on older, more established communities IMHO. In fact I pass a new development on my way to work every morning and I feel the builder has incorperated the panels quite nicely into the general structural and feel of the building.

jennifernil

Sol-Energy wrote: »

Unfortunately any renewable energy system must be installed by an MCS registered installer in order for you to claim any Feed In Tariff.

As an installer and an owner of a 3.96 kw I can defiantly confirm that they are indeed a superb investment. Asthetically they do draw the eye yes but in return they will reduce your forever rising electric bills as well as accumulate a very healthy return on your investment. ..........................

So my original 12k investment will be in profit in just 9 years.

We have been looking at this recently and could well be interested in a 4 kw installation on an almost south-facing roof (slightly west of south).

We have not had any quotes, but were under the impression that an array that size would cost rather more than £12k to install.

If you can point us in the direction of an installer who can put in a quality system for £12k, feel free to PM me.

We are in Glasgow.

ian-d

How big are these panels? Just trying to work out how much of my due-south roof would be covered! Is planning permission required?

Are the rates of return based on you feeding all the power back to the grid, or do you use some yourself? How would that work based on 4,500KwH electric usage per year?

Porcupine

Personally I think there's more risk in the FIT than is made out.

1. Currently the packback is 4 times the price of electricity (more if you consider wholesale prices). They don't really make financial sense without the subsidy, so you're vulnerable if it gets pulled. It seems energy prices are going to have to rise anyway, but I'm not sure how the economy would cope with a 4x increase.
2. The cost of the FIT can only increase electricity bills. FIT is transferring money from the poor (who rent, perhaps in energy poverty) to the rich (homeowners who can afford big upfront costs and people renting bits of land to companies in it purely for the subsidy, in tabloid-speak 'spivs and speculators'). This is politically difficult.
3. I'm a bit uncertain about the carbon impact based on the carbon footprint of manufacturing, installing and maintaining panels, given the output in British weather (if anyone has numbers for this I'd be most interested)
4. The panels may well last less than the advertised time.
5. The tariffs were introduced by the previous government
6. 25 years is a very very long time in politics


So I'd expect closure of the scheme to new members, and then followed by the government gradually trying to worm its way out of the FIT payments. I don't know the mechanism by which it would do this: I thought it might inflate them away but the payments appear to be index linked. They will probably have lawyers pulling apart every clause, so at the very least I recommend having a look at the agreements yourself and looking for loopholes. And do the calculations very carefully for unexpected costs (premature equipment failure, etc)

whitelabel

quite a few new build developments in birmingham and surrounding area (eg rubery) ive seen, have had solar panals installed, so there are some developers that are using them

edinburgher

So I'd expect closure of the scheme to new members, and then followed by the government gradually trying to worm its way out of the FIT payments

I have to say that I can quite easily see your prediction coming to pass, gloomy as it is Despite all parties trying to point out their green credentials, the level of practical support for micro renewables remains low (for example, I was reading about £300 grants for solar hot water systems this morning - doubt this will incentivise many).

Lokolo

Porcupine wrote: »

3. I'm a bit uncertain about the carbon impact based on the carbon footprint of manufacturing, installing and maintaining panels, given the output in British weather (if anyone has numbers for this I'd be most interested)

Although I completely agree with this, the current efficiency of solar panels is quite low



As with most new things in the world, the more R&D that goes into it, the more that can come out. I have no doubt that solar panels now aren't that great (the more that sell, the more that can go into R&D!), but in the future I feel as though they will come along quite well, even in the not so sunny UK.

roddydogs

I couldnt believe how they went overboard on this, their are dozens of Installers, I get several flyers every week promising to make me a fortune, whats so special about this one?

roddydogs

roddydogs wrote: »

I couldnt believe how they went overboard on this, their are dozens of Installers, I get several flyers every week promising to make me a fortune, whats so special about this one?

, and whose to say the "Government" in the future will honor the contract?

Porcupine

Lokolo wrote: »

As with most new things in the world, the more R&D that goes into it, the more that can come out. I have no doubt that solar panels now aren't that great (the more that sell, the more that can go into R&D!), but in the future I feel as though they will come along quite well, even in the not so sunny UK.

What's interesting is that back in 2002 when I last did the calculations, the theoretical limit of solar cells was high-20s%. That's because they were crystalline silicon: interesting that the efficiency has gone up since then. Though those points on the graph are mostly research demonstrations (I assume), rather than manufactured cells you can buy now for a sensible price. But manufacturing is more an issue of economics than physics, so the ones in the shop may improve accordingly.

This is one of the problems with the FIT: people are having to buy cells now to meet the deadline, when the efficiency may increase in the future. So unless people are willing to replace their cells in 10 years time when the efficiency gets better, the FIT people will be stuck on comparatively inefficient cells and the government will be shy of investing in better technologies because they've got this big FIT burden tied around their leg.

Sol-Energy wrote:

A 4Kwh system will very rarely actually give you 4Kw but on the average will supply your electricity needs for the bulk of the day.

Indeed, solar cells have their rating at 1KW per square metre solar radiation. 1KW/m2 is a huge number for the British climate: when I was doing my measurements on a cloudy East Anglia day in March solar radiation was more like 100W/m2, then put through a 20% efficient panel giving 20W/m2 of electricity. You might get 1KW/m2 for a few days in the height of summer, but rarely otherwise. So don't base your calculations on the ratings of the panels: try to find out what kind of solar radiation you might get at your location given your roof angle: there are probably calculators on the web.

Also, another cost to consider is that of removing the panels and making good when they cease to be useful.

Don't get me wrong: I think support for solar installation is a good idea, but I think the FIT is an over-subsidised dash to install mediocre technology now that will leave the government with a huge burden that will block more innovative installations in future.