do those figures add up? off course they don't.

EricMears

OP Actually said " (been told that) I could maybe get £1000 a year from the government"

That surely means sum of FIT payments and deemed exports may exceed £1000. Any import savings would be a 'bonus' rather than included in that £1000.

Without knowing the slope of the roof concerned - and preferably approx location, I wouldn't like to guess what projected generation might be. Could also be further deductions for shading etc ?

When calculating any savings in imported power, we also need to know what current tariff OP is on. 14p /kwh seems rather high - if really on that OP needs to shop around ! Actually using 50% of your imported power is possible - but takes an awful lot of doing; norm is surely somewhat less.

Martyn1981

I'd agree with Eric. £250 is too optimistic.

Assuming it's a big install then I suppose 40% consumption at 11p would be optimistic but doable, so around £150. More than that would need particular circumstances that we don't know.

That said, @3% inflation, we'd be back at £1,000 pa in 3 years for total savings and income (though not all from the govt (actually energy based subsidy)).

Maybe the OP will come back with house and location specs to get a more 'nailed down' estimate.

Mart.

Cardew

The 14p/kWh - so beloved of the solar companies when estimating savings - is the figure Ofgem use as the average price including the tier1 or Daily standing charge and ignoring discounts.

Any savings should be calculated using the Tier2 price and after discounts. - say 10p to 11p/kWh. and of course 50% consumption in house is hard to achieve.

Investment Payback Period (years)

8.25

However investing the quoted average price of £8330 in a long term Building Society account @ 4.6% gives an annual compounded return of £383 in an ISA or £306 if you pay standard rate tax.

Total Annual Payments

£1,009.56

£

Life Time Benefit

£25,238.89

Nothing of course will ever go wrong in 25 years!!!!

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

However investing the quoted average price of £8330 in a long term Building Society account @ 4.6% gives an annual compounded return of £383 in an ISA or £306 if you pay standard rate tax.

As future interest rates, RPI/CPI rates and energy inflation rates are, to us, today unknowns, it's always tricky to include them in such calculations.

However, if you are going to include them, then you need to be both fair and thorough.

Taking £8,330 and compounding it annually @ 4.6% for 9 years will give us £12,379 considerably more than 9 years income @ £1,000, £9,000.

Remembering to compound (via index linking) the £1,000 income annually @ 3% inf. would however give a 9 year total of £10,159. A little closer.

Further remembering to invest each year's income @ the designated 4.6% would raise the 9 year total* to a more comparative £12,135.

* eg end of year 2 total = Yr 1 £1,000 + Yr 2 (inc 3%) £1,030 + int £46 (4.6% on Yr1 £1,000) = £2,076.

In an attempt at complete fairness, whatever figure for inf. that is being assumed, should be reduced by 0.25% to offset annual panel degradation. This however will be balanced against the fact that interest on income should really be calculated from each qtr end rather than each yr end.

A fairer comparison would be to look at annuity rates, and see how much would need to be invested to receive £1,000 index linked for 25 years.

Cardew wrote: »

Nothing of course will ever go wrong in 25 years!!!!

Not entirely true. Next to nothing is probably a fairer average bet, but there will always be the unlucky ones. Also need to add in 1 replacement inverter (approx £1,000), or 1 inverter refurbishment (approx £400), plus labour and generation losses. Also perhaps a professional clean every 5 or 10 years.

Mart.

LittleVermin

st999 wrote: »

I just had a call from a solar energy company <snip>

They are sending someone to my home at 7 pm tomorrow

They require both my wife and I but she won't give up her bingo night.

Will that make a difference to the sales talk?

jimjames wrote: »

<snip>
I'd be very wary of any company that is using the sales tactics described. Most genuine solar companies abiding by the REAL code of practice will assess your house, provide the quote and let you decide. Sign up on the day is against the code I believe. <snip>.

The REAL - Renewable Energy Assurance Scheme - is approved by the Office for Fair Trading - http://www.realassurance.org.uk/ - and gives SEVEN WORKING DAYS in which a customer can cancel:

Members will give consumers seven working days to cancel the contract without penalty (the 'cooling off period') after they have signed the contract. Before the contract is signed members must explain how the consumer can cancel the contract, give the name and address of the person to contact in this event, and provide a cancellation form such as this one (link).

REAL has 5410 members listed - so if the company isn't a member you've an easy way to show them the door. And if they are, you have those 7 days to change your mind. So your wife insisting on her bingo night probably did you both a favour!

You can download the full code for customers as a pdf from the website.

(I hope the MSE experts on solar energy have not found black sheep among the REAL flock!)

st999

A quick update.

They phoned to confirm the appointment while I was in the shower, my wife told them that she did not want ugly panels on her roof.

So they did not come.

I was so looking forward to recording the whole sales technique, I even had my camcorder battery charged up.

My house is in central Scotland and the ridge runs north/south, the roof is partially shaded from next door and none of the free installers would touch it. Completely unsuitable was one of the comments.

I had told all this to the caller but she was adamant that the new panels being used were better than the old ones and only needed daylight, not sunlight to produce electricity.

EricMears

st999 wrote: »

I had told all this to the caller but she was adamant that the new panels being used were better than the old ones and only needed daylight, not sunlight to produce electricity.

Wow !!! Ability to change the laws of physics!

Seems to confirm that God must be a woman.

grahamc2003

EricMears wrote: »

Wow !!! Ability to change the laws of physics!

Seems to confirm that God must be a woman.

Not sure what laws of physics have been changed by the lady's (correct) view that only daylight is needed for panels to generate, and not necessarily sunlight.

Of course, just daylight gives me typically 10% of direct sunlight, but nevertheless, daylight does cause generation, and she said

Originally Posted by st999

I had told all this to the caller but she was adamant that the new panels being used were better than the old ones and only needed daylight, not sunlight to produce electricity.

which is correct on both her statements as far as I can see.

EricMears

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Not sure what laws of physics have been changed by the lady's (correct) view that only daylight is needed for panels to generate, and not necessarily sunlight.

Of course, just daylight gives me typically 10% of direct sunlight, but nevertheless, daylight does cause generation, and she said

Originally Posted by st999

I had told all this to the caller but she was adamant that the new panels being used were better than the old ones and only needed daylight, not sunlight to produce electricity.

which is correct on both her statements as far as I can see.

And generating at 10% of panels' potential is going to produce £1000 per year is it ?

grahamc2003

EricMears wrote: »

And generating at 10% of panels' potential is going to produce £1000 per year is it ?

Non sequitur