Solar panels

Innys

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

Solar PV pannels are not worht it at all - in their current state. I say this as a technician whos done a lot of investigation (NOT using hype).

The issues are:

1. Cost - PV pannels are still WAY too expensive. They coat a tiny fraction of what they sell for to actually make.

2. Efficiency. Currently PVs are verry inefficient - in that that ammount of the suns energy they catually convert to electricity is small - circa 15-20% at best, providing your pannels face in exactly the right place.

3. Feed in Tarrifs. These are what povided the most income, however the power companies lobbied the goivernment and won. They argue that they charge areound 12p per KWh yet the FITs (so what they pay the pannel owner) was up att 40p As a result FITs are being reduced every 6 months and will eventually dissapear. What that means is the only benefits you will get are free electric when the sun shines, and you will get paid at the same rate you pay per unit for nay that gets fed it - and probably less (as the power companies have to fund maintenance).

4. Pay back tiemes. Current payback times are around 17 years and getting longer as FITs reduce. Thats why companies that provide free PVs bt own and maintain the pannels, (but pocket all the FITs) are dissapearing - its just not worth it any more.

5. Useage patterns. The VAST majority or power used in a typical house is when the suns not shining - or at least not as powerfull. That is the evening/dinner time. The most electric is generated in the middle if the day. With FITs at their peak you could save a fortune, as you supplied power at 40p per unit in the daytime, and used it at 12p in the evening. As FITs reduce, those proffits are dissapearing and eventually the only befits will be the free elec you use during the daylight hours.

6. Linked to the above - a typical PV array is 4Kw. Its quite possible for you to use this much power at any one time on a house (admittedly for short periods). A decent elec shower for instance is 8-9Kw, so your PV array supplies only half the required power. Kettles are around 3-4Kw so you could cover that, provided nothing else in the house is on.

THE GOOD NEWS.

Well - yes there is some, but its a way off. As aways thge cost of new technologies reduce - and the same is true of PV. As the cost of pannels reduce they will become more viable. Also the tech will get better. Its theoretically possible for PVs to get to around 80% efficient, providing more power per pannel. In the future, it may be possible to pay half as much as you pay now for an array providing 4 times the power. That will cover most households daytime useage, and put enough back into the system to cover MOST of their evening/night time costs (and there may well be suitable storeage solutions aailable by then as well - meaning you store your daytime generated power for use at night). A fully workable, efficent solar solution for domestic use is still a couple of decades away at least.

A technician who has done lots of investigation? Really? My comments in relation to some of the above:

1) So what? As panels become cheaper FIT rates will also go down, negating the benefits of the cost reductions.

2) Again, so what? Who cares about efficiency - unless you are an eco-mentalist? This is an MSE site, remember?

3) FITs are frozen when you have the panels installed. So, if you were an early adopter, you won't get less than 40p per unit for 25 years. In fact, it goes up, in line with either the RPI or CPI, I can't remember which. The posting above implies that those who have had the panels installed will eventually get a FIT of zero which is incorrect.

The "free electricity " point is also wrong as that amount paid also goes up in line with inflation.

4) Payback periods have never been 17 years. The average is 11 years. It hasn't changed much because as the FIT has been reduced by the Government, so have installation costs.

This reduction of FITs does not contradict my point above. All it means is FITs have been reducing for new installations. Those who signed up initially still receive the higher FITs and will do for the life of their contract.

5) This is only correct if two meters are installed. One to record units generated and one to record units used. It is possible to have just the first meter installed and a "deemed" calculation done based on the number of units used. The deemed calculation is that 50% of the units generated are used. If only one meter is installed, the number of units actually used is irrelevant to the money paid to the householder.

6) Again - irrelevant if one is only concerned with the return on a PV investment for a single meter installation.

As you may have guessed, I am an early adopter and only have one meter. I had the panels installed in June of 2011 for £11,500 and, so far, have generated nearly £2,000. At that rate, payback should be just under 10 years. The efficiency would have to fall off a cliff to get a payback period of 17 years.

Finally, I would not recommend the OP considers having panels installed by a 3rd party whereby that party gets the FITs and the OP only gets the electricity savings. That is because, effectively, the third party is leasing the OP's roof for 25 years. God only knows what would happen if the OP wished to sell their house some time during that period - I'm guessing the 3rd paty could block the sale.

If you are considering having PV panels installed, pay for them yourself. Otherwise, don't bother as you're likely to sign up to something very inflexible.

cyclonebri1

I have looked at this and had several companies around to give their views.

It appears that although we have a massive roof, it is too fragmented and facing exactly N/S, would be possible but there is not enough space to group the required No of panels.

All free installers said no, and walked away.

Paid for installers were very wary, decried the freebie ins as being "tack".

The only actual quote I got was for a £6500 installation and the payback of 18 years, just not worth it. Even the guy said forget it.

paulmapp8306

Innys wrote: »

A technician who has done lots of investigation? Really? My comments in relation to some of the above:

1) So what? As panels become cheaper FIT rates will also go down, negating the benefits of the cost reductions.

2) Again, so what? Who cares about efficiency - unless you are an eco-mentalist? This is an MSE site, remember?

3) FITs are frozen when you have the panels installed. So, if you were an early adopter, you won't get less than 40p per unit for 25 years. In fact, it goes up, in line with either the RPI or CPI, I can't remember which. The posting above implies that those who have had the panels installed will eventually get a FIT of zero which is incorrect.

The "free electricity " point is also wrong as that amount paid also goes up in line with inflation.

4) Payback periods have never been 17 years. The average is 11 years. It hasn't changed much because as the FIT has been reduced by the Government, so have installation costs.

This reduction of FITs does not contradict my point above. All it means is FITs have been reducing for new installations. Those who signed up initially still receive the higher FITs and will do for the life of their contract.

5) This is only correct if two meters are installed. One to record units generated and one to record units used. It is possible to have just the first meter installed and a "deemed" calculation done based on the number of units used. The deemed calculation is that 50% of the units generated are used. If only one meter is installed, the number of units actually used is irrelevant to the money paid to the householder.

6) Again - irrelevant if one is only concerned with the return on a PV investment for a single meter installation.

As you may have guessed, I am an early adopter and only have one meter. I had the panels installed in June of 2011 for £11,500 and, so far, have generated nearly £2,000. At that rate, payback should be just under 10 years. The efficiency would have to fall off a cliff to get a payback period of 17 years.

Finally, I would not recommend the OP considers having panels installed by a 3rd party whereby that party gets the FITs and the OP only gets the electricity savings. That is because, effectively, the third party is leasing the OP's roof for 25 years. God only knows what would happen if the OP wished to sell their house some time during that period - I'm guessing the 3rd paty could block the sale.

If you are considering having PV panels installed, pay for them yourself. Otherwise, don't bother as you're likely to sign up to something very inflexible.

Are those comments really serious???

1. Thats kind of the point. You have to FORGET FITS. As pannels get cheaper, then it costs less to install, so the time it takes to recoup that cost (ie the money saved by not buying the electric during daylight hours NOT money received fgrom FITs).

2. Everyone. % efrficiency is not down to being eco/green. it means you get more electricity from the same PV/outlay, therefore the effective cost per KW decreases. At some point this alone will make PV panels worth it from a pure financial POV - currently there not.

3. From the research Ive done, FITs are NOT frozen. They are at present BUT thats going to change .. very soon. Ultimately even if existing contracts are honoured it wont effect the OP - only those who already have the pannels, so not relevant to this thread.

4. 17 year payback period is the current period companies installing PV are using - because with the reduced FITS thats how long it takes to recoup the costs. Remember its not fitting the PVs that cost - its buying them and those havent gone down much at all. This may reduce as the cost of PVs goes down (as it will eventually) and the cost of daytime electric continues to rise. Currently though - 17 years is correct.

5. Again - this will change. The power companies dont like "assuing" 50%. Either way, as FITs dissapear it will make no real difference. You generate you own energy in the day, and pay for that used during dark hours. This is kind of the whole point about it NOT being financially worth it at present.

June 11 makes you a late adoptor not an early one. Still, jumpinbg in at that time made sense. Jumping in now does not, unless your one of the luck few in exactly the right orientation and the "free" companies will still install on your roof. Its not worth paying for it yourself.

Dont get me wrong - Im in favour of Solar PV in principle, and actually feel it should be law for roofs in all new buildings (commercial and residential) to be made of Solar PV. Long term it will help the contries energy problems. However the fact is AT PRESENT (NOT 18 months ago - things have changed drastically and still going the wrong way), Solar PV does not make ECONOMIC sense. Ther are other issues of course which may come into play.

As of Today, a typical installation will be £12-£15k. An average yearly electricity bill (not duel fuel) is around £800. Even if ALL your energy wsa generated from the PVs, thats 15-19 years payback - and its not.

Your own personal circumstances will alter perspective as well of course. If you are a high energy user during the day but low at night - have a large array - and are locked into VERY generous FITs (around the 40p/unit level) then your on a winner I guess. BUT for the typical user, with a typical array, at todays (and future) FITs - its just not economical at present.

paulmapp8306

Oh. Selling houses with PVs on them owned by another comany is a non issue. Tearing thehouse down might be I guess.

In glad your sorted INNYS - however that with the FITs you are currently getting. The fact is that someone installing them now will only get 23p - so almost half as much as you (even if locked in for 25 years) - meaning nearly twice as long to recoup the costs - which funnily enough woul dbe around the 17 years I quoted. That figure is reducing every 6 months until it hits 12p (the current agreement) so its only going to get worse.

Technology (and energy pricing - both into the gri and out of it) change on al almost daily basis. What was economical 6 months ago isnt any longer.

Innys

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

Are those comments really serious???

1. Thats kind of the point. You have to FORGET FITS. As pannels get cheaper, then it costs less to install, so the time it takes to recoup that cost (ie the money saved by not buying the electric during daylight hours NOT money received fgrom FITs).

2. Everyone. % efrficiency is not down to being eco/green. it means you get more electricity from the same PV/outlay, therefore the effective cost per KW decreases. At some point this alone will make PV panels worth it from a pure financial POV - currently there not.

3. From the research Ive done, FITs are NOT frozen. They are at present BUT thats going to change .. very soon. Ultimately even if existing contracts are honoured it wont effect the OP - only those who already have the pannels, so not relevant to this thread.

4. 17 year payback period is the current period companies installing PV are using - because with the reduced FITS thats how long it takes to recoup the costs. Remember its not fitting the PVs that cost - its buying them and those havent gone down much at all. This may reduce as the cost of PVs goes down (as it will eventually) and the cost of daytime electric continues to rise. Currently though - 17 years is correct.

5. Again - this will change. The power companies dont like "assuing" 50%. Either way, as FITs dissapear it will make no real difference. You generate you own energy in the day, and pay for that used during dark hours. This is kind of the whole point about it NOT being financially worth it at present.

June 11 makes you a late adoptor not an early one. Still, jumpinbg in at that time made sense. Jumping in now does not, unless your one of the luck few in exactly the right orientation and the "free" companies will still install on your roof. Its not worth paying for it yourself.

Dont get me wrong - Im in favour of Solar PV in principle, and actually feel it should be law for roofs in all new buildings (commercial and residential) to be made of Solar PV. Long term it will help the contries energy problems. However the fact is AT PRESENT (NOT 18 months ago - things have changed drastically and still going the wrong way), Solar PV does not make ECONOMIC sense. Ther are other issues of course which may come into play.

As of Today, a typical installation will be £12-£15k. An average yearly electricity bill (not duel fuel) is around £800. Even if ALL your energy wsa generated from the PVs, thats 15-19 years payback - and its not.

Your own personal circumstances will alter perspective as well of course. If you are a high energy user during the day but low at night - have a large array - and are locked into VERY generous FITs (around the 40p/unit level) then your on a winner I guess. BUT for the typical user, with a typical array, at todays (and future) FITs - its just not economical at present.

I'm sorry, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. The above posting is full of nonsense, self-contradictions and plain inaccuracies.

I won't run through all of them because I simply can't be bothered to waste the time. However, here's a few to get other readers thinking.

1), 2) & 3) Why should you ignore FITs? They are, after all, the only reason people have these panels installed. The point is, if you sign up now you will get FITs at the prevailing rate fixed for 25 years. What happens after that is only relevant if you don't sign up before they are phased out. So the longer you leave things, the worse your return will be.

You seem to think that the savings from PV should be enough to justify their installation alone and they shouldn't be subsidised. You do know other green energy is subsidised too, don't you?


4) & 5). You state that installation cost has not gone down and is currently 12 to 15k. But that's more than I paid 18 months ago and I live in the South East - an area not known for cheap cost of living.

By your own admission, panel costs will go down over time. Plus, CycloneBri has stated they had a quote for £6,500. Either their roof is a greenhouse or I live in a palace.

If either of those are not the case, please explain why you still think a typical installation costs more than mine did 18 months ago and around double what CycloneBri was quoted.

You also don't seem to appreciate that as the FIT rate halves, the installation costs has almost halved as well. The net effect of both of those is that the payback period is pretty much unaffected.

The exception to this is what CycloneBri found. If the proposed installation is not optimal (doesn't face South and can't accomodate the necessary panels), the payback period will be much longer because the energy generated will be much less. But that would be the case if CycloneBri installed panels 2 years ago, today or 200 years from now. No amount of efficiency is going to compensate for the fact that their roof is orientated the wrong way and not large enough.

paulmapp8306

Your basic assumption is wrong. FITs are now a lot lower than they were when you installed and set to get lower. Even with where they are now, then the payback period is 17 years+.

Secondly - and more importantly - FITs are not a fixed as you think - whatever you have been told. Speak to the power companies and they hate them. They are not binding (at least as far as their concerned) and they have plans to reduce them even from existing installations, in the not to distant future. The only possible exception is if you stay with the same power company for your supply for the life of the panels. If you change supplier they are free to change the FIT rates once the government "fixed" rate ends - which is soon. Power companies are very powerful (no pun intended). There is VERY little chance that FITs will remain fixed for the 25 year period. there already fighting it. tis not cost efficient to pay 40p (or even 23p) for an item you then sell at 12p.

All green energy is currently subsidised - but not for much longer. The country cant afford it and once our current commitment period ends - so will most subsidisation.

Either way it doesnt matter. You either believe or not. If anyone is really serious about finding out the CURRENT situation - they can research themselves with suppliers and power companies. I have no problem with them doing this, as your info is outdated.

Even the PV fitters are giving the same info i am - 17+ years payback and getting worse.

Im glad your fixed (and hope you stay so) at such a generous FIT rate - but for anyone who hasnt already got an installation - its just not worth it financially at present. This will change, first getting worse then better (though through tech improvement and cost reductions - totally non FIT related).

the £12-£15k is not fitting - its complete. Cost of panels, other hardware and fitting, and is dependant on the company and size of the panel. Its more than 18 months ago as panels have risen in price (on the back of the green thing) - but the installation costs - ie what you pay to have the panels installed - hasnt changed much.

Ill re-iterate. Anyone already with panels did well. Those with fixed FITs do best, but they wont last the full 25 years. if your thinking of installing NOW - then get TODAYS information. if you still want them great - but financially at present its not worth it (unless your facing in EXACTLY the right direction, not within 20 deg or so as it used to be - even then its touch and go).

Theres a very good reason companies making on FITs (ie the free ones leasing your roof) are getting VERY picky where they install - and wont be offering them at all for much longer. Its BECAUSE the payback period is so long - currently 18 years (ish). Theres just no profit available in a reasonable timeframe.

paulmapp8306

Umm - seems even im out of date - having looked into things a few months ago. Things do move fast in this area. So apologies for anything wildly out.

Average cost of a 3.5Kw system is currently around £7600. My 12k was based on a larger system (4.5Kw - which I was quoted when looking earler this year) but even that is less than it was 6 months ago (around £9k not £12k). thats good.

However FITs are lower - by quite a bit, as its now down to 15.44p per unit (from the 23p it was when I looked in depth). Currently that 3.5Kw system (on a single meeter system) could net you around £630/year. So a payback period or around 12 years. This is however based on "best case". That is a 100% efficient system (and PV panels do degrade over time providing less power) AND being situated in the perfect alignment. Even then Im not convinced. The figures dont seem to add up. the same source quoting £630/year also quotes the 15.44p/unit - and ALSO quotes a typical system "could" generate 3000KWh/year. Well at 15.44p/unit (KWh) thats only £460/year - so quite contradictory. If you take £460 as your yearly figure its more like a 17 year payback (its that re-occurring figure again).

Its certainly moved the goal posts (again, though its not as rosy as some will lead you to believe) since i did some in depth research (thou - and things will get better. Power companies want FITs to be no more than 10p (currently) and they should reach that in the the next 12 months (apparently) but thats not a great deal less than now. if the cost of a PV array continues to go down the rate it has over the last 6 to 12 months, then it should be economical again soonish. It needs to get down to around £3000 really to give a realistic payback period of those not in perfect alignment.

I still say its probably the WORSE time to think about PV. 18 months ago with FITs at 40p it was a potential gold mine. in a couple of years if the cost of an installation keeps going down at the current rate, then even 10p/unit may be economical - but currently at 15.44p with costs near £8k for a 3.5Kw system I still say its not financially worth it.

i havent even got into the cost of maintenance - I didnt get that far. Maybe Innys can give us a stear there.

Not trying to put those off who want PV - or knock those who have it. As i said, id have it in an instant if it was economical, and maint costs will come into that - but currently its not really viable. Of course if you have the cost of the installation kicking around in a bank account doing nothing - it may be a worthwhile longer term investment. After all energy prices are only gong one way so generating your own (even with no FITs) is not a BAD thing - just an uneconomical one at present.

Nine_Lives

macman wrote: »

OP, are you talking about solar hot water, or solar PV? Different things.

This is where my knowledge is exposed again.

Panels that give you electricity, which i guess in turn heats your water??

When i was a kid, our coal fire was what heated our water up & it was damn good - that water was scalding hot!! You'd be like a lobster in the bath.
We then got it all altered when we had a shower put in. It's a 'leccy shower & i know my mum's often complaining about the 'leccy bill. Since this was installed, the water isn't anywhere near as hot as it used to be. The water out of the sinks & such gets quite hot, but the bath is probably lukewarm at best.

So something to run your electricity. You hear of people "selling it back to the board". Sounded good to me.

Innys

See here for a couple of examples:

http://www.eon-futurehome.com/solar-saver-electricity/feed-in-tariffs/

https://www.sse.co.uk/BeingGreen/SolarPV/

You will note the initial cost is nowhere near the £12k to £15k quoted by a certain "technician" above. In addition, break even is a lot less than 17 years and far closer to the 11 years I stated.

I have not had to do any maintenance yet. The installer is due to visit soon to do the first service and it will be free (included in the initial cost).

paulmapp8306

Solar PV - is Solar photo-voltaic. As in makes volts (voltaic) out of the sun (photo). thats what turns sunlight into electricity.

Solar HW - uses the warmth of the sun to warm up water - which is then used via a heat exchanger to give you hot water in the home.

PV can be used to drive anything electric - or fed back into the grip. HW is used to heat your home, and your hot water taps but that it.