Solar Panels --- a bit of a Gimmick

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Yes, he got them for the money.

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

Another strange post!

Do I get pleasure from Graham's distress, no, quite the opposite in fact as I'd like to see all PV installations do well, and generate large amounts of energy for those who have taken the time and effort to invest in them.

My surprise was in your simple acceptance that after the two years of anti PV campaigning that the two of you have undertaken on the MSE site, and your constant tag-teaming of anyone that dared to support PV. Particularly, the moralistic statements that FITs takes money from the poor and gives it to the rich, that you would simply accept a reversal of beliefs and morals on the grounds of money?

Hopefully Graham's generation will improve when the sun is higher, and the trees have been trimmed a little. Best wishes.

Mart.

Martyn1981

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

Zeup, regarding RaR installations, you're right in your example that some may be put off, either by the look of the panels or the roof lease, however the exact opposite could also be true, as the potential buyers would receive the electricity savings without any capital outlay for the kit. This could be a plus point in the selling of the property.

I'm stretching the example now, but you could also have a young, environmentally friendly family, that wish to support renewables, but couldn't afford to pay for an install, nor a premium to 'takeover' a paid for system. They may actively seek out a RaR install as it shouldn't add to the purchase cost.

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

My surprise was in your simple acceptance that after the two years of anti PV campaigning that the two of you have undertaken on the MSE site, and your constant tag-teaming

You seem incapable of distinguishing between anti-PV and anti-FIT.

Don0301 is a well matched tag-team member for yourself.

The_Green_Hornet

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck.

sly_dog_jonah

2010 wrote: »

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

Each to their own, but the ability to supply your own electricity reduces your reliance on the grid significantly. Who knows where electricity prices will be in 25 years? At which point the FiT will halt but panel owners will still benefit from free electricity from panels that should be kicking out around 80% of their capacity.

Our panels are mounted to the rear of our property and are not visible from the road. It remains to be seen what effect PV will have on resale value, as the FiT has only been running a couple of years so not many homeowners would have sold in that period having forked out to buy a system. I'd hedge my bets that the savings/income they generate would more than offset any aesthetic concerns. But we're not planning on moving until they have at the very least broken even.

Based on Dec/Jan/Feb usage compared to the previous year (the only months we have comparable data so far, and the poorest months for generation), our electricity consumption from the grid has reduced 23.5%. These savings are on top of the FiT Generation and Export income, which for Oct 21st to Feb 10th offset 76% of our fixed direct debit for Gas & Electricity for the same period. This DD will reduce before long as it was set based on our pre-PV annual consumption, unless of course electricity prices continue their upward spiral.

Hobbo2006

2010 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.
I spent £300 over the past year on electricity which equates to £9k over 30years which is about the price of currently installing these panels.

I won`t be bothering, and if people want to spoil the look of their property that`s up to them.

I still spend that but I'll also be paid around £1200 per year, based on my installation, for generating my own electricity. It will also track inflation so £1200 this year will probably be worth around £1700 in 10 years time. My installation should pay for itself in just over 5 years.

In total it stands to generate around £40k in cash through the Feed In Tariff over 25 years. It should also save me around £6k in electricity costs in that time too.

It's also transferable if I should sell up.

As a buyer you may have choices within a street of houses. With two houses being the same I would expect 95% of people to pick the one that comes with a yearly income.

I personally wouldn't care if the panels were pink with blue spots at those figures but the reality is that they are dark with black metal edges. I can't even see the mounting rails. Just a cable bundle coming down the side of the house, like sky etc. If anything it's better than looking at the concrete tiles with huge clumps of moss that we had before.... it definitely doesn't spoil the look.

Maybe this isn't for you, maybe you don't have the capital. My personal opinion was that I couldn't afford to miss this opportunity of buying an asset that IMO adds value to the home and brings in so much cash through the Feed In Tariff.

Even if you don't have the capital there is an arguement to say get a loan. If you borrowed £10k then you'd probably pay back around £13k over the life of the loan. At the £43p rate the Feed In Tariff payments may even cover the cost of the loan so after 6 years you could have paid nothing out and still have the solar pv installation!

don0301

Cardew wrote: »

You seem incapable of distinguishing between anti-PV and anti-FIT.

Don0301 is a well matched tag-team member for yourself.

Rofl clutching straws???

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

You seem incapable of distinguishing between anti-PV and anti-FIT.

Don0301 is a well matched tag-team member for yourself.

If you feel that strongly about it, then I'm happy to amend my post:

My surprise was in your simple acceptance that after the two years of anti PV FIT campaigning that the two of you have undertaken on the MSE site, and your constant tag-teaming of anyone that dared to support PV FITs. Particularly, the moralistic statements that FITs takes money from the poor and gives it to the rich, that you would simply accept a reversal of beliefs and morals on the grounds of money?

Is that better?

I trust I'm not being too nice or polite to you, I do take on board your comments where you complain each time I'm polite to people, or use their names in responding.

However, my mother brought me up to believe that 'manners maketh man'. Sadly, in your case, it would appear the opposite is also true.

Mart.

grahamc2003

Cardew wrote: »

You seem incapable of distinguishing between anti-PV and anti-FIT.

Don0301 is a well matched tag-team member for yourself.

Lol - this thread is quite funny isn't it? There's a massive distinction between anti-PV and anti-FIT, yet I'm afraid to many it's simply the same thing.

Reminds me a little of when someone asked who from history they would like to have a chat over lunch with, and someone answered Hitler, and from then on they were viewed as anti semitic and Pro-death camps!

I'm afraid when people are cacooned in some sort of emotional shell through which they view the world, logic, sense, truth, facts or any other properties of sensible argument simply have no effect whatsoever, hence why I don't respond to a few posters on here.

Anyhow, I'm extremely distressed with my solar panels at the moment, even after a complete U turn on my solar views, so it's time for my anti-depressants. (Then again, there may just be a bit of Munchausen by proxy in these parts).

don0301

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Lol - this thread is quite funny isn't it? There's a massive distinction between anti-PV and anti-FIT, yet I'm afraid to many it's simply the same thing.

Reminds me a little of when someone asked who from history they would like to have a chat over lunch with, and someone answered Hitler, and from then on they were viewed as anti semitic and Pro-death camps!

I'm afraid when people are cacooned in some sort of emotional shell through which they view the world, logic, sense, truth, facts or any other properties of sensible argument simply have no effect whatsoever, hence why I don't respond to a few posters on here.

Anyhow, I'm extremely distressed with my solar panels at the moment, even after a complete U turn on my solar views, so it's time for my anti-depressants. (Then again, there may just be a bit of Munchausen by proxy in these parts).

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.

So - how do I get rid of a massive tree or two? I'm ok with a chainsaw, but I know my limits, and these are beyond them. Any council workers here? If I asked the council/road authorities or whoever owns them, are they likely to prune it (heavily) if I ask them? Or slap a protection order on them? I only want to save the planet afterall.

Now, that's really funny