Cold called re free solar panels.

KeenToMakeSavings

Re post #40:

I've got a spreadsheet which I set up to calculate monthly repayments and earnings for solar PV in which I can set any loan amount with any deposit at any interest rate over any period. I can then compare the repayments with the savings from the present FIT scheme and savings to my electricity bill assuming any exported percentage for any size in kWp of solar PV panel system using the data from the PVGIS website calculator.

This shows that unless I'm prepared to pay a hefty deposit, which don't have, I will be out of pocket for at least the first year and probably for several years no matter how small a system I purchase if the maximum loan period is 10 years at 9.7% as it is with the government-triggered Barclay loan scheme for solar PV.

So setting a target price for a system which breaks even in the first year as suggested by zeupater in post #40 simply does not work - the numbers don't add up with these loan figures.

zeupater says that with a 10 year loan at 5.9%, break-even in the first year becomes possible. This is true because the monthly repayments are then reduced for the same savings. However, I've not found any loan which is available for a period of 10 years at such a low rate - the Barclay loan is at 9.7% actual.

Similarly I've not found any loan available over the 15 year period that zeupater mentions other than an extension to my mortgage which at my age I cannot extend or move, only pay off. Perhaps zeupater could tell me where I can obtain the 15 year loan that he uses in his example and what its interest rate would be. I'm all ears as I suspect his argument is hypothetical and therefore impractical. Sorry, I don't mean to sound rude.

And by the way, just for the record, the figures he quotes from post #20 were mine, obtained from my spreadsheet.

Ian

KeenToMakeSavings

spgsc531 wrote: »

DECC stated green taxes on fuel bills was £20 a year in 2011. That's 38p a week. That's 5p a day. Hardly life changing.....

DECC calculates that its policies will add £48 to bills by 2020 (compared with its £20 figure for 2011), but it argues that its overall push for renewables and energy efficiency will lead to a net decrease in energy bills.

Sorry, but knowing the way politics and the economics of energy supply work, I simply don't believe we'll ever see a sustained reduction in our energy bills. Any apparent reductions as mentioned, will in my opinion be wiped out by increases in the world cost of raw energy, by increases in the cost of its processing and supply, and by other as yet unannounced levies, taxes, etc.

Ian

InVestor_2

KeenToMakeSavings wrote: »

zeupater says that with a 10 year loan at 5.9%, break-even in the first year becomes possible. This is true because the monthly repayments are then reduced for the same savings. However, I've not found any loan which is available for a period of 10 years at such a low rate - the Barclay loan is at 9.7% actual.

Ian

Less than 60 seconds searching found Tesco doing unsecured loans up to £15,000 up to 10 years for a headline APR of 5.2%..

rogerblack

InVestor wrote: »

Less than 60 seconds searching found Tesco doing unsecured loans up to £15,000 up to 10 years for a headline APR of 5.2%..

And they will offer that representative loan rate to over 50% of applicants.
The rest get a worse offer.

EricMears

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Could you supply a quote where anyone has said it's only the poor who pay - because I've never seen anyone say or imply that, and I can't see how anyone could even think that that was the case.

I've seen several posts just like yours though - seemingly 'clarifying' that all bill payers pay, and not just the poorly off. I've always wondered why they've posted a 'clarification' when there never was any doubt anyhow.

Not without wading through the hundreds of pages we've accumulated where people have been banging on about the alleged sayings of some American guru claiming the scheme as a transfer of assets from poor to rich.

I suspect that the 'several' (I believe that's actually 'many') instances of others feeling that confusion had crept in adequately demonstrates that such statements were made.

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

Not without wading through the hundreds of pages we've accumulated where people have been banging on about the alleged sayings of some American guru claiming the scheme as a transfer of assets from poor to rich.

I suspect that the 'several' (I believe that's actually 'many') instances of others feeling that confusion had crept in adequately demonstrates that such statements were made.

If this helps Eric, here is the last time I responded to Graham when he last asked this question:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

It's contained in the article that Cardew has posted in support of your arguments on dozens of occassions. And a point he made great play off until a few months ago, when it was soundly ridiculed.

Apparently that appalling piece of journalism by George Monbiot is good enough to use to knock PV, but not good enough to stand behind when push comes to shove, and it's mathematics and 'statements of fact' are reviewed and found to be seriously wanting:

All PV FITs to be paid by the poor,
ignores the subsidy paid to wind,
claims Germany is pulling out of PV when they went on to install world record amounts,
criticises PV for not generating during the winter peak, when the role of FITs is to reduce CO2,
and so on.

It's about time people stopped complaining about FITs, or any subsidy that doesn't benefit them personally.

Mart.

zeupater

KeenToMakeSavings wrote: »

Re post #40:

I've got a spreadsheet which I set up to calculate monthly repayments and earnings for solar PV in which I can set any loan amount with any deposit at any interest rate over any period. I can then compare the repayments with the savings from the present FIT scheme and savings to my electricity bill assuming any exported percentage for any size in kWp of solar PV panel system using the data from the PVGIS website calculator.

This shows that unless I'm prepared to pay a hefty deposit, which don't have, I will be out of pocket for at least the first year and probably for several years no matter how small a system I purchase if the maximum loan period is 10 years at 9.7% as it is with the government-triggered Barclay loan scheme for solar PV.

So setting a target price for a system which breaks even in the first year as suggested by zeupater in post #40 simply does not work - the numbers don't add up with these loan figures.

zeupater says that with a 10 year loan at 5.9%, break-even in the first year becomes possible. This is true because the monthly repayments are then reduced for the same savings. However, I've not found any loan which is available for a period of 10 years at such a low rate - the Barclay loan is at 9.7% actual.

Similarly I've not found any loan available over the 15 year period that zeupater mentions other than an extension to my mortgage which at my age I cannot extend or move, only pay off. Perhaps zeupater could tell me where I can obtain the 15 year loan that he uses in his example and what its interest rate would be. I'm all ears as I suspect his argument is hypothetical and therefore impractical. Sorry, I don't mean to sound rude.

And by the way, just for the record, the figures he quotes from post #20 were mine, obtained from my spreadsheet.

Ian

Hi Ian

I simply used data from the example you raised in your own post (#18) re ....

KeenToMakeSavings wrote: »

.... Assuming an APR of 6% and an actual rate of 5.9% (both lower than is currently being talked about) over 10 years in combination with an assumed lowest 4 kWp system price of £6,000 results in a no-deposit monthly loan repayment of £79.50. Taking my location in south Cumbria and using the PVGIS website for a south-facing roof with a slope of 30 degrees, the system in theory would earn £551 per year from the 15.44p per kWh Feed In Tariff payments. Assuming half the electricity generated is exported at 4.5p per kWh, the total annual return from the system is therefore £631.53 or, averaged over the year, £52.63 per month compared with the loan repayments of £79.50 so unless the reductions in my electricity bill were more than this difference I would be out of pocket from the first year.

My electricity rate is currently 13.611p per kWh ....

... therefore there's no point in posting paragraph after paragraph having a go at 'zeupater's' data in what looks to be a deliberate attempt to cause friction on the forum and then, recognising that it's obvious that what you've been arguing about were your own figures, therefore simply adding "And by the way, just for the record, the figures he quotes from post #20 were mine, obtained from my spreadsheet." ...

If you really want a system and not just to rant about the fairness of both interest rates and the renewables approach being taken by the government, just look for better deals, they are available, both in terms of system prices and finance, as others have already pointed out ... else, simply understand that having a pv system at the current time is either unaffordable in some circumstances or that the idea of a renewables subsidy and the levy which funds it is against the political viewpoint held by some others .... nobody is trying to provide false information, just simply help ...

What needs to be remembered is that with solar pv it is absolutely impossible for anyone to align monthly payments on a loan, which are evenly distributed by quarter, with generation based FiT payments and energy savings which are seasonal ... even if a system is installed in the Autumn there would be a completely different cashflow position than one installed in Spring ... there are simply too many variables, including the localised weather, to not take the 'long-view' ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

KeenToMakeSavings wrote: »

Sorry, but knowing the way politics and the economics of energy supply work, I simply don't believe we'll ever see a sustained reduction in our energy bills. Any apparent reductions as mentioned, will in my opinion be wiped out by increases in the world cost of raw energy, by increases in the cost of its processing and supply, and by other as yet unannounced levies, taxes, etc.

Ian

Ian, 100% spot on. Fuel prices will continue to rise, and almost certainly faster than inflation.

That's why renewables with free fuel (wind, sun, rain) will eventually help to cap energy costs, which would otherwise rise further. This is something that Germany is already experiencing as renewables 'with no respect for peaks' start to have an impact. And I'm sure we'll experience as we rely more and more on imported gas.

Whilst I admit you could disagree with this statement, I myself believe that avoiding a future price increase, is the same as a price reduction.

The purpose of subsidising renewables is to help reduce CO2 emissions, but if the side effect is to finally bring an end to excessive rises in energy bills, then win win!

Mart.

spgsc531

KeenToMakeSavings wrote: »

Sorry, but knowing the way politics and the economics of energy supply work, I simply don't believe we'll ever see a sustained reduction in our energy bills. Any apparent reductions as mentioned, will in my opinion be wiped out by increases in the world cost of raw energy, by increases in the cost of its processing and supply, and by other as yet unannounced levies, taxes, etc.

Ian

Who said anything about a sustained reduction in bills??

I read what DECC have stated as their policies will add £48 to an average bill, but the effect will be to reduce that bill by more than £48. Feel free to read what they said in detail and find they said a sustained reduction in bills.

Martyn1981

spgsc531 wrote: »

DECC stated green taxes on fuel bills was £20 a year in 2011. That's 38p a week. That's 5p a day. Hardly life changing.....

DECC calculates that its policies will add £48 to bills by 2020 (compared with its £20 figure for 2011), but it argues that its overall push for renewables and energy efficiency will lead to a net decrease in energy bills.

"Citing government research, the CCC found that the primary causes of energy bill increases since 2004 have been an increase in the international price of gas – accounting for nearly two-thirds of the increase in an average household energy bill – and the cost of ongoing investments in electricity and gas networks, which made up about 16% of the average bill. Meanwhile, policies to encourage low-carbon investment and energy efficiency improvements added only about 10% each to bills from 2004 to 2011."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/13/gas-energy-bills-renewables?

Both energy efficiency & low-carbon investment, should be seen as long term investments to help reduce future bills. [Edit: or to avoid controversy - 'help reduce future bills, or help reduce the level of increases in future bills.' M.]

Mart.