Solar Panels --- a bit of a Gimmick

don0301

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I see that you were unable to provide a "logically constructed and non-confrontational reply" !

The partial agreement was with the point ... "what on Earth has that got to do with someone who owns their own home paying for their own Solar panels?" ... I agree, it didn't and I provided logical explanation why it was posted and why it didn't. The original post and the supplimentary explanation explain why the point was not irrelevant, therefore again, I just can't follow your logic (if there is any) and I simply wonder, after reviewing the actual posts in context, whether anyone else does ether ....

Z

Ive already pointed out why your post was irrelevant. A tiny proportion of owner houses will have R-a-R panels compared to purchased ones. the vast majority of R-a-R panels have gone to council houses,HA houses etc. Therefore the value of the house whether up or down is irrelevant to them, as i pointed out.

Golfclap if you think one example of a tiny minority wins the argument. However I'm sure most people will see your post was irrelevant.

I agree with Newtonflotman. For the vast majority of people who have bought solar panels, it must add value.

Cardew

don0301 wrote: »

Ive already pointed out why your post was irrelevant. A tiny proportion of owner houses will have R-a-R panels compared to purchased ones. the vast majority of R-a-R panels have gone to council houses,HA houses etc. Therefore the value of the house whether up or down is irrelevant to them, as i pointed out.

From George Monboit the arch environmentalist.

Today, Andrew Pendleton of Friends of the Earth insists in the
Guardian
that there are "countless" examples of community feed-in tariff schemes in the UK.


They're not countless; they've been counted by the energy regulator, Ofgem, in its annual report. There are 403 such schemes, as opposed to 29,265 domestic installations. The community projects have, on average, been larger than the domestic ones, but they still account for only 5% of the total capacity, while private home owners' schemes account for 82%.

(Thanks to Mike Kirwin for pointing me to the Ofgem report).


The feed-in tariff is just what Andrew Pendleton says it isn't: "a
middle-class subsidy". No amount of cherry-picking by Friends of the Earth, which throws around figures without providing comparisons, will change that.

This group, which is usually a force for good, needs to look long and hard at the social impact of the policies it supports.


The transfer of money from the poor to the middle classes and the rich engineered by the feed-in tariff will do almost nothing to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.

A Shade Greener alone have installed over 10,000 R A R installations

zeupater

don0301 wrote: »

Ive already pointed out why your post was irrelevant. A tiny proportion of owner houses will have R-a-R panels compared to purchased ones. the vast majority of R-a-R panels have gone to council houses,HA houses etc. Therefore the value of the house whether up or down is irrelevant to them, as i pointed out.

Golfclap if you think one example of a tiny minority wins the argument. However I'm sure most people will see your post was irrelevant.

I agree with Newtonflotman. For the vast majority of people who have bought solar panels, it must add value.

Hi Don

Thanks for view on R-A-R, of course you have data to support your position ? .... anyway, I again think that you have intentionally misrepresented what I have posted, and I do note your change of emphasis regarding R-A-R ownership in the earlier reply to larkim's post. There may be many housing associations and local authorities who have gone down the R-A-R route, however, they would have missed out on a great opportunity if they have done so as most such schemes that I know of have been done by the councils and housing authorities themselves in order to tap into the FiT revenue stream.

I agree that for the 'vast majority of people who have bought solar panels' there is the likelihood of a premium to the house price, however, whether this premium would be greater than the installation cost of the panels is questionable. My point, which you seem to disagree with, was to answer what newtonflotman actually posted (not what you represent to have been posted), which was "Who says they could devalue your house?", therefore, in the case where an owner-occupied house comes on the market soon after installation and the property has R-A-R panels and the purchasers would either not want pv or would want owned pv, the property 'could' achieve a lower sale value, as has been debated on this forum many times, so surely this makes the point aptly relevant, no matter how you attempt to spin your position in order to maintain an argument ....

HTH
Z

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

It would appear from his statement that Cardew is anti FITs but pro PV? Difficult assumption that, but maybe I’m getting closer to the answer. Though quite how you can support a technology, but not wish it to be supported in its infancy I’m not at all clear on. Perhaps, it’s just the level of FITs, and the fact that it wasn’t amended fast enough, but that would mean he was focusing on short term issues today, and was incapable of seeing the bigger picture tomorrow? Odd, very odd!

Do you not feel that it is a trifle arrogant for you to attempt(and fail) to sum up everyone’s stance on PV? Even worse to then base your criticism on that incorrect analysis.

My position on PV has been quite consistent. It is good clean environmentally friendly electricity that is extremely expensive to produce. The unpredictable nature, and inability to generate at times of peakload(i.e. after sunset!) are major drawbacks.

However if our political masters determine that we must generate PV electricity, then it should be generated as efficiently and cheaply as possible. That would mean large solar farms – preferably in SW England – or near where it would be most beneficial. It could be situated on factory/supermarket roofs, brownfield sites or farmland on raised platforms.

To pay stupidly high subsidies to have tiny systems on scores of thousands of roofs in far flung locations across UK is a nonsense. To compound this situation by paying those subsidies to house owners and rent a roof companies for electricity they don’t even have to export is unbelievable!

There hasn’t been a single coherent argument against solarfarms, who could produce electricity at a fraction of the subsidy paid to houseowners and Rent a Roof firms.

Even if the weird proposition - that the UK’s contribution of solar installations has been instrumental in driving down worldwide solar production costs - had any merit, solar farms would support that notion.

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

This is hilarious

Please keep posting.....

Why on Earth would someone ( a tiny proportion of people with solar panels R-a-R that own their home) want to buy out??

as you made your case on Larkim, he might comment?

And has been said already, is it clear that buyers of said house be put off anyway?

No financial penalty, anything goes wrong it's sorted for free.

They get cheaper Electricity bills....

don0301

Cardew wrote: »

From George Monboit the arch environmentalist.



A Shade Greener alone have installed over 10,000 R A R installations

good job quoting a reference to non owner houses to owner houses having R-a-R

but it's not what i said

I said non owner houses with R-a-R to owner houses who have bought.....

Z well done thanking him for his irrelevant post

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

You tried to make a case that solar panels reduce a house value, I made a point you are wrong

That simple enough for you, Sir Humphrey?

larkim

don0301 wrote: »

This is hilarious

Please keep posting.....

Why on Earth would someone ( a tiny proportion of people with solar panels R-a-R that own their home) want to buy out??

as you made your case on Larkim, he might comment?

And has been said already, is it clear that buyers of said house be put off anyway?

No financial penalty, anything goes wrong it's sorted for free.

They get cheaper Electricity bills....

My name being taken in vain!??!

In my case, I have the prices under which I could buy out the deal. Given that I already have the panels on the roof so the price of a new install is completely irrelevant at that point, if (and only if) I ever have sufficient free cash available to buy out the panels and if (and only if) I can evaluate that it will make a good buy based on FIT rates at the time, I might buy out.

But I'm still quite happy just to have slightly lower bills and a nice green feeling!!!

Matt

zeupater

don0301 wrote: »

You tried to make a case that solar panels reduce a house value, I made a point you are wrong

That simple enough for you, Sir Humphrey?

Hi Don

Again, unnecessary abuse .... why do you need to be so abusive to people on both sides of a discussion ? ....

Anyway ... I actually made a point which describes a situation where solar panels could reduce the value of a house at the time of sale, you simply made a counter position ... I could be right, so could you, therefore your post above is factually incorrect .....


also .... regarding the other recent post ....

This is hilarious

Please keep posting.....

Why on Earth would someone ( a tiny proportion of people with solar panels R-a-R that own their home) want to buy out??

as you made your case on Larkim, he might comment?

And has been said already, is it clear that buyers of said house be put off anyway?

No financial penalty, anything goes wrong it's sorted for free.

They get cheaper Electricity bills....

.... if we're considering the value of a property there's an obvious link to selling that property, why else would anyone be looking at values as any real value is what a buyer is willing to pay. If a buyer doesn't like the idea of a restrictive contract being in place on a property they would have a number of options which would include walking away and reducing the offer price on the property. If a buyer likes solar pv and wants to take advantage of FiT payments the option would be to buy the house with the R-A-R panels and then buy-out the remaining contract, so let's look at an example of what is likely to happen ....

Two houses are for sale in the same road and the only difference is one has a recently fitted R-A-R system and the other doesn't. A potential purchaser who wants an owned pv system in order to take advantage of FiT payments looks at both properties and needs to make a decision on what to offer ....

Property 1 - House Value + ~23/24 year contract buyout of 3.3kWp system for £14000+VAT (20%) = £16800
Property 2 - House Value + new 3.3kWp system for £6800 inc VAT.

... so logically, wouldn't the purchaser initially look at the price they would be willing to pay, including pv, then set the offer price accordingly, so ..... Offer Price = (Total - 16800) v (Total - 6800) ... which would mean an offer of £10k less for the house with the existing R-A-R system.

Regarding Larkim .... From previous discussions I understand the logic which was used in making the decision and as he(?) has posted in the past, part of the decision was related to the plan to stay in the house for the duration of the restrictive contract, therefore the effect on the saleable value of the property was irrelevant and the value of the energy savings would be welcome, however small, therefore the logic employed is sound in my opinion.

HTH
Z

don0301

zeupater wrote: »

Hi Don

Again, unnecessary abuse .... why do you need to be so abusive to people on both sides of a discussion ? ....

Anyway ... I actually made a point which describes a situation where solar panels could reduce the value of a house at the time of sale, you simply made a counter position ... I could be right, so could you, therefore your post above is factually incorrect .....


also .... regarding the other recent post ....

.... if we're considering the value of a property there's an obvious link to selling that property, why else would anyone be looking at values as any real value is what a buyer is willing to pay. If a buyer doesn't like the idea of a restrictive contract being in place on a property they would have a number of options which would include walking away and reducing the offer price on the property. If a buyer likes solar pv and wants to take advantage of FiT payments the option would be to buy the house with the R-A-R panels and then buy-out the remaining contract, so let's look at an example of what is likely to happen ....

Two houses are for sale in the same road and the only difference is one has a recently fitted R-A-R system and the other doesn't. A potential purchaser who wants an owned pv system in order to take advantage of FiT payments looks at both properties and needs to make a decision on what to offer ....

Property 1 - House Value + ~23/24 year contract buyout of 3.3kWp system for £14000+VAT (20%) = £16800
Property 2 - House Value + new 3.3kWp system for £6800 inc VAT.

... so logically, wouldn't the purchaser initially look at the price they would be willing to pay, including pv, then set the offer price accordingly, so ..... Offer Price = (Total - 16800) v (Total - 6800) ... which would mean an offer of £10k less for the house with the existing R-A-R system.

Regarding Larkim .... From previous discussions I understand the logic which was used in making the decision and as he(?) has posted in the past, part of the decision was related to the plan to stay in the house for the duration of the restrictive contract, therefore the effect on the saleable value of the property was irrelevant and the value of the energy savings would be welcome, however small, therefore the logic employed is sound in my opinion.

HTH
Z

unnecessary abuse? lol

I think comparing you to Sir Humphrey while very apt is actually very funny too. others can agree or not