Solar panels - Deborah Meaden

Lokolo

Porcupine wrote: »

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.

Yep exactly, but just like cars, they'll come along at affordable price giving good efficiency.

It's why I am playing the waiting game, rather not rely on FIT to get some sort of return

edinburgher

It's why I am playing the waiting game, rather not rely on FIT to get some sort of return

I'm waiting 'til I own a roof

Lokolo

edinburgher wrote: »

I'm waiting 'til I own a roof

That too........

edinburgher

Sigh - is this thread becoming a referral zone? If so, it probably needs to be moved.

jamespir

they got solar panels on the residential home near us what do old people need them for

oh and whats with the new dragon her shoulders are bigger than her waist

edinburgher

they got solar panels on the residential home near us what do old people need them for

To power the defibrillators?

I jest old people - we love you really

sabretoothtigger

Lokolo wrote: »

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

.

I think the real world changer will not be efficiency but cheapness and ease of use.

Ive heard of solar cells that could be printed off and gave 1% returns. If solar power became as common as stickers it'd be more important

lowbrim

Doozergirl wrote: »

It's not a 10% return because you don't have the money anymore, but an asset that is slowly depreciating on your roof. They may pay for themselves, they may even turn a small profit, with inflation hmm, but they aren't really an investment opportunity.

I agree it is not a good investment othyer than for the people who are selling and fitting them.

It is not an asset that appreciates so you have essentially lost your money but get a "potential" 10% back per year. I would rather keep the money and put it in a RPI + tracker and have access to the money.

Russe11

what are the companies offering free instalations all about then, is it the case you sign over the income from any grants/energy your cells create?

Do they just install the min required to get the money from the goverment, giving you a inadequate and possibley a poor installation?

Or do they advertise this as a ruse to get you interested, saying you get a free panel but you need a bigger system to give you a decent return or worthwhile amount of energy so you need to spend x amount?

Ark_Welder

Russe11 wrote: »

what are the companies offering free instalations all about then, is it the case you sign over the income from any grants/energy your cells create?

Do they just install the min required to get the money from the goverment, giving you a inadequate and possibley a poor installation?

Or do they advertise this as a ruse to get you interested, saying you get a free panel but you need a bigger system to give you a decent return or worthwhile amount of energy so you need to spend x amount?

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Generate-your-own-energy/Solar-electricity/Consumer-guidance-on-free-solar-PV-offers