Solar Panels --- a bit of a Gimmick

Martyn1981

davidanddeirdre wrote: »

All the pros and cons of solar panels have some objective validity except for the aesthetic, where beauty is purely in the eye of the beholder. Personally I like the look of them,

The main long term problem is night time. The generation technology has run ahead of the ability to make best use of what is produced, because of the absence of substantial electricity storage capability. The person or organisation that can solve this one in a practical manner will, I predict, make a very large amount of money in a very short time.

I think they can look nice too. Just like wind turbines. To be honest, in 5 years time they'll be like Velux windows, nobody will care, nor notice.

Regarding night time, don't worry about it. We need a diverse range of electricity generation. We have baseload specialists such as nuclear, peak time specialists French Nuclear, and hydro, or pumped storage hydro. And we have above base supplies such as gas.

PV only generates when demand is above base, and nicely corresponds with the working day, for offices, factories etc, so an extremely good match. PV does the job assigned to it. Winter peak demand is not, nor ever was it's role.

Sadly however, for self consumption, you are right. We need some better batteries!

Mart.

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

You're right in most respects - they are a mad way of generating electricity in the UK. On almost every measure going, they perform very poorly (e.g. cost/kwh, co2 saved per£ spent).

But, the powers that be bend to green demands however mad they are, so panel owners get very large subsidies (now dropping to just large), and they can get very high returns from any money 'invested' (I'd say most couldn't give a frig about the green aspects (which are in any case an illusion imv), being their original raison d'etre, and just think about their own financial return).

Those who just consider their own bank account think they're great - a licence to print money. But to UK plc and the taxpayers and electricity consumers who pay the subsidy, they are nothing short of madness - simply part of a green ideaology which makes no pretence at making any sense.

And I speak as a panel owner, which no doubt confuses many. I have nothing against people taking advantage of whatever system is going (we all do, all the time) - my problem is with the insane system itself.

Very odd post, so before and after getting PV, you criticise them on financial, moral and environmental grounds!

So why did you get them?

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Very odd post, so before and after getting PV, you criticise them on financial, moral and environmental grounds!

So why did you get them?

Mart.

He has made it perfectly clear - to make money!

All his criticisms of the FIT system are still perfectly valid!

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

He has made it perfectly clear - to make money!

All his criticisms of the FIT system are still perfectly valid!

The money?

grahamc2003 wrote: »

1st sunny day here (Surrey) since I got my system, and I now realise I've got major problems. What a killer shading is! Panels (1.75kW) face SW. Generation built up nicely to 1.1kW at about 11am when is started getting shading from trees. It just plopped down to 100-200W most of the rest of the day - there are about 4 trees (two evergreens, the rest not even any leaves yet!) which go from S to SW. They're massive - owned by council/road people. Maybe in a few weeks the sun may be above a couple, but the other two are closer and I doubt it'll ever clear them. The shadows aren't hard or distinct. The near one, the worst, a now enormous beech) is one I planted after the 87 storm - thought so many trees gone I should replant one. We're in a country lane with houses just one side - the other side is just about 40 feet of trees (publicly owned) then a road then a private golf course.

newtonflotman

Yes, I know I'm lucky I got the 43.5p FIT plus my panels happen to be on the back of the garage, not visable from the front.
But if I sell my house in the future the new owner is guaranteed £600 pa plus an increase each year with inflation for the remainder of the 25 year period. (1.5kw system) and my payback period is only a little under 8 years.
So that could cover someone's mortgage for 1-2 months a year or pay a high percentage of ALL energy costs per year.
I've heard that some houses around here are being sold for approx 5% more than an identical house without solar panels for the reasons above.
We can get grants/price reduction etc for everything nowadays, Insulation, eco-boilers, eco double-glazing, eco-cars.
Some save you lots, some you don't save much at all. Everyone one has an option/choice.
The only certainty is that in 25 years time electricity will cost far more than the 11-12p per KW it does at the moment.

Cardew

The money?

Yes, he got them for the money.

I have nothing against people taking advantage of whatever system is going (we
all do, all the time)

Your post smacks of Schadenfreude, instead of your normal obsequious utterings!

don0301

Cardew wrote: »

Yes, he got them for the money.




Your post smacks of Schadenfreude, instead of your normal obsequious utterings!

what are you trying to prove, or add to this Forum by saying that? Feeling smug or something? You clearly think your on another intellectual level to others on here? Explain?

zeupater

newtonflotman wrote: »

..... if I sell my house in the future the new owner is guaranteed £600 pa plus an increase each year with inflation for the remainder of the 25 year period. (1.5kw system) and my payback period is only a little under 8 years.
So that could cover someone's mortgage for 1-2 months a year or pay a high percentage of ALL energy costs per year.
I've heard that some houses around here are being sold for approx 5% more than an identical house without solar panels for the reasons above .....

Hi

Consider the case where the panels have been supplied for free in return for a 25/26 year legally binding contract tied to the property (not the owner) to have them on the roof, then consider that the only way to buy-out of the contract in the foreseeable future would be to hand over more money to the R-A-R scheme operator than a new system would cost either yourself or anyone wishing to buy your house ..... would this likely negate/reverse the 5% premium ??

HTH
Z

don0301

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Consider the case where the panels have been supplied for free in return for a 25/26 year legally binding contract tied to the property (not the owner) to have them on the roof, then consider that the only way to buy-out of the contract in the foreseeable future would be to hand over more money to the R-A-R scheme operator than a new system would cost either yourself or anyone wishing to buy your house ..... would this likely negate/reverse the 5% premium ??

HTH
Z

what on Earth has that got to do with someone who owns their own home paying for their own Solar panels?

Prove the majority of R-A-R has gone to people who do own their own home....

anyone who owns their own home and signed up to R-A-R deserves your logic......

2010

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Quick question - do you understand the Feed in Tarrif?

I have never gone into it in depth, but from the news there was a bit of a kick-up over the price being halved by the government and then an appeal where they said it couldn`t be cut, etc.

In my OP I merely pointed out that these panels are growing in numbers, although around my area there`s only a few and I didn`t particularly think they looked attractive slung all over a roof.
The nearest one to me has 16 panels that cover the whole of one side of the roof.

I can see what the idea is that they generate energy from the sun`s rays, hopefully enough to supply your electricity needs.
Any surplus, in theory you sell on to whoever at X amount per KWH.

Just Googling, the amount of energy produced varies greatly and in most cases there`s no surplus to sell on, more so in winter.

In theory it`s a great idea to produce your own energy and make a profit from the surplus but the reality is after you`ve forked out £10k (maybe more) and have an eyesore on your roof, which could deter a future buyer, you are probably no better off than not having them.
Meanwhile ALL energy consumers are subsidizing the FIT.

I know when people have been persuaded to buy into great ideas, they will react by trying to justify their actions and saying they get all their energy needs covered, supply their whole street with the surplus and will get their money back easily in XYZ years.

All I`m saying is £10k buys 30 odd years of electricity, so the panels are not for me.

Just to add, I think when some of these ministers go on a junket at taxpayer`s expense, they seem to get a bit carried away with their promises and as a consequence bring a great deal of extra burden to ordinary people.