Cold called re free solar panels.

Martyn1981

KeenToMakeSavings wrote: »

I've checked and you are correct but I've regularly checked and up until a very few weeks ago, the maximum loan period was only 5 years.

To qualify for the stated 5.2% APR, the minimum loan is £7,500 compared with a typical purchase price of £6,000 for a 4 kWp system. Tesco give the interest on £7,500 at 5.2% APR as £79.84 but my monthly FIT income + electricity savings assuming 3,550 kW per year (PVGIS data for my property) would be £72.21 per month averaged over the year so I would only be out of pocket by an average of £7.63 per month which is certainly better than with the special Solar PV Barclay loan or any other. In practise, in the winter I'd be significantly more out of pocket but make gains in the summer.

Of course all the calculations assume I realise the PVGIS figure for the year in the first place, which is a speculative assumption given the present weather pattern here in Cumbria.

But I'm grateful for your loan update which for those with a bit of surplus monthly income to act as a buffer, makes the prospect much more viable.

Ian

Hiya Ian.

Generation - As long as you've done the PVGIS entries correctly and taken any shading into account, then the figures are pretty accurate. But they are an accurate average, and will vary each year.

Loan costs - Not really happy saying this, but Martin Lewis has pointed out that sometimes it's worth taking out a slightly higher loan amount to get a much better loan rate, something you've just spotted. This makes me a bit nervous, actually, very nervous, but best to mention it.

PV for you - don't let me put you off, but PV is a long term investment, and if you have to finance it, that will make it far less attractive. Technically, you are looking to borrow money at one rate, and then invest it at a better rate, this is speculative. As you are retired, I'm not sure this is best for you. But happy to help with any numbers etc if I can.

All the best.

Mart.

KeenToMakeSavings

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

The BRE SAP calculation is contained in Appendix M of the following document (Page 82) ..... http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/SAP/2009/SAP-2009_9-90.pdf

with the calculation being defined as ... (0.8 ´ kWp ´ S ´ ZPV) ... reference must be made to tables H2 & H4 for relative orientation/slope irradiation and overshading, however using the best orientation values for S(H2) and no overshading (H4), it looks like the 0.8 factor simply hasn't been applied in the figures you've been supplied .... have a look at the document and see what the SAP results should be ...

Regarding "government-guaranteed minimum figure" ... there is no such thing, either made or implied. The SAP figure is simply a reasonable conservative estimate of the generation from a system. Of course, each installer will attempt to 'up-sell' their product over the competition by providing information based on the historical actual performance of 'example' existing systems which could imply that some some panel packs are shipped at above nominal performance, however, this is no guarantee of system performance for the panel pack you would receive, or the performance within a particular location's microclimate, so be wary if this approach is used.

HTH
Z

Thank you but I realise all those things which is why I was claiming I was being misled - conned if you prefer.

Ian

KeenToMakeSavings

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya Ian.

Generation - As long as you've done the PVGIS entries correctly and taken any shading into account, then the figures are pretty accurate. But they are an accurate average, and will vary each year.

Loan costs - Not really happy saying this, but Martin Lewis has pointed out that sometimes it's worth taking out a slightly higher loan amount to get a much better loan rate, something you've just spotted. This makes me a bit nervous, actually, very nervous, but best to mention it.

PV for you - don't let me put you off, but PV is a long term investment, and if you have to finance it, that will make it far less attractive. Technically, you are looking to borrow money at one rate, and then invest it at a better rate, this is speculative. As you are retired, I'm not sure this is best for you. But happy to help with any numbers etc if I can.

All the best.

Mart.

Hi Mart, While the PVGIS data is pretty accurate as you say, it is a historical average. The newer PVGIS SAF database, which is the more accurate of the two, is based on two groups of data: the first covering the period from 1998 to 2005 and the second from 2006 to 2010. My point was that no matter how accurate is the historic data, this is no guarantee of the performance of a system from 2010 onward, particularly in view of the significant changes in weather (cloud cover, rain etc) which we have experienced here in the North West of England for the past two years and which is predicted to continue as a result of global warming, particularly the increasing sea temperature in the North Atlantic which was recently reported by Reading University in a Research paper, so I strongly suspect this will result in reduced solar PV system output from that predicted using a historical average up to 2010.

Therefore any calculation for property in the North West such as mine, which is borderline between saving and being out of pocket is likely to err more towards the latter than the PVGIS data predicts. So if the loss in the early years cannot under any circumstances be absorbed until the FIT payments and rises in electricity bills catch up, as in my case, I am locked out of the benefits of a system, whether they be medium or long term.

Regarding your point about loans, the minimum loan to be able to obtain an APR as low as 5.2% over 10 years is £7.5k. If I use £6k of this to buy a solar PV system then I have £1.5k spare but when I subtract the income and savings of the solar PV system from the loan repayments, there is shortfall to make up so I find I'm paying a little over 6% for this additional £1.5k of loan. Therefore unless I can invest the surplus £1.5k at a guaranteed rate of better than a little over 6%, I will still be out of pocket - the very thing I can't afford to be.

And if the output from the panels is less than predicted from the PVGIS data as above, then I'm faced with an even bigger loss which I can't support.

Martin Lewis' point is that if I were to borrow only the amount I need, namely £6k, the interest rate would be very much higher so my loan repayments would actually increase for less money, which is true but it isn't the whole story as the above shows.

What we need is support where we are protected from even these early year losses. Then we will be on a level playing field where solar PV is viable for everyone instead of only those who have sufficient spare capital to be able to make an outright purchase without little or no borrowing.

Ian

Martyn1981

KeenToMakeSavings wrote: »

What we need is support where we are protected from even these early year losses. Then we will be on a level playing field where solar PV is viable for everyone instead of only those who have sufficient spare capital to be able to make an outright purchase without little or no borrowing.

Ian

Hiya Ian, I appreciate you feel a little hard done by, but remember that PV (unlike loft insulation etc) won't reduce your energy consumption, instead it makes it a bit greener. Nothing wrong with that, and that is why I feel support for it is justified. But for the purposes of earning you some money, it is no different to you pointing out that you don't have £5k to pop into a high savings account (if there are any these days) or £10k to buy a car. This doesn't mean that the financial package or the car dealer is mistreating you.

In the long run, hopefully PV will roll out to more and more properties, but since the subsidy is dropping (as well as the cost), you may never find a point where you can invest using someone else's money.

Hmmmm ..... that last paragraph has given me an idea. I hesitate to mention it, but since you have always taken what I've said in the manner it was given, then I'll risk this dodgy advice, though I'm not really comfortable with it, if I'm honest ...

Rent a Roof (RaR)!

You may be able to find a company that will install a system on your roof, and make their money back from the FITs and export income. Leaving you with the leccy savings. Hard to guess what you'll save, maybe £100pa (£70 to £150). But this is very, very speculative.

There are several threads on here about RaR's. It's a really big decision, so you'll need to think carefully about giving a firm a 20 year lease on your roof. Can't stress enough, I'm not recommending this, only pointing out the option. And I'll probably get a load of stick just for mentioning the idea.

Mart.

PS. I take your point about PVGIS, I calculated my investment at 90% of PVGIS climate just in case. Last year I hit 99% of target. I think you are wise to consider everything, but I doubt any variances will be too substantial, but we are back to averaging and your concerns regarding the early years. Tricky. M.

EricMears

KeenToMakeSavings wrote: »

My point was that no matter how accurate is the historic data, this is no guarantee of the performance of a system from 2010 onward, particularly in view of the significant changes in weather (cloud cover, rain etc) which we have experienced here in the North West of England for the past two years and which is predicted to continue as a result of global warming, particularly the increasing sea temperature in the North Atlantic which was recently reported by Reading University in a Research paper, so I strongly suspect this will result in reduced solar PV system output from that predicted using a historical average up to 2010.

I think you could be making a mistake in disregarding 20 year old data just because the climate change brigade are telling you their opinion of the future.

They seem to be telling us that this winter has been quite bad and was caused by increasing global warming - but we (N Derbys) had more snow in late 2010 than early 2013 and of course 1962/3 & early 1947 were far worse all over the country than any recent years.

Last year was indeed the wettest for well over a hundred years for most of us - but the last three years were not the wettest ever three year period.

Pick any individual year out of the last hundred and there will be something unusual about it but examine the other 99 and you'll probably find another year was more extreme.

I'd have a lot more faith in climate change models if those offering them were able to predict a week ahead with some degree of accuracy.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

You are obviously feeling sorry for Martyn to have posted the above.

You know full well that the poor have to pay towards the FIT subsidy.

You also know full well that Monbiot never said 'only the poor' and it is absolutely obvious to anyone with two brain cells that all who pay electricity bills pay towards the FIT.

Even if he had made a mistake and stated 'only the poor' - which of course he didn't - it wouldn't make any difference to his reasoning. His logical criticism of the FIT scheme would still stand - the poor do contribute to the FIT subsidy.

If your only defence of his attack on FIT scheme is to try and attribute to him something he never stated, and clearly never meant; then you have lost the argument.

I think we all are aware of Martyn's lack of logic when it comes to any criticism of his beloved PV, but you can really do better than come out with such - merely to give him support.

Hi Cardew

There is no 'disingenous nonsense', neither intended or implied in the previous posts to which you are referring, neither is there an attempt to support anyone, just to provide an 'objective' conclusion which is based on the source data having followed a set of 'subjective' arguments in which it was obvious that neither camp had actually researched or directly referenced the article or it's data source.

Have a look at post #72 .... I simply came to look at the issue by reading the article in question and then searched for a government data source which contained the information which was being reported and commented on. Reading the source document and understanding what it actually 'said', not what had been reported, highlighted some inconsistancies ... I have therefore posted my view that the conclusion which formed the basis of the article was flawed, I even identified that the flaw was probably due to a misconception based on there being two definitions of 'PV' in the report, 'photovoltaic' & 'present value' which could have lead to George Monbiot making a straightforward mistake, the only possible alternative being to deliberately mislead the public, which, of course, Mr Monbiot would surely not have even considered when writing the article.

In response to the claim that "Monbiot never said 'only the poor'", that may be the case, but considering both the headline and content of the article along with the data used, there was obviously intent to convey this point. Out of a total scheme cost of £8.6bn as reported in the article, this being based on an official source, the full and exact amount from the source report was used, not 'up to' or 'over' or 'more than 20 years' but £8.6bn, which implies that neither the period of 20 years or the accuracy of the source data is in question. It was therefore definately 'implied' within the article that the full amount is paid by 'only the poor', the source defined the £8.6bn as the total cost, the article defined this amount as being ..."The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes" ... the two are not the same therefore there is an issue with the article, it is flawed, it may not say that the scheme is financed by 'only the poor' but that's what it actually implies, or what anyone would reasonably read it as saying. This conclusion, based on substance, is absolutely contrary to recent posts which have claimed that 'only the poor' was neither 'said' or 'implied', the exact phrase was not 'said', but that's exactly what was 'implied' by the author in the article, and that's therefore what the author 'said' ...

HTH
Z

zeupater

grahamc2003 wrote: »

But Monbiot's information source did not say the total cost of fits was £8.6bn. It said the cost to 2030 was £8.6bn (as I have already posted twice and subsequently you once)

Will you still be paid your fit in 2031? (under current plans?). The poor will still be contributing to mine in 2037.

So your first word 'if' is where you are going wrong. He said £8.6bn was being transfered from the poor to the middle class, the fit cost will be greater than £8.6bn, therefore he did not isay or imply or otherwise indicate that 'only the poor pay the fit'.

What he did say in the same article (para 2) about who would pay the fit was

"On 1 April the government introduces its feed-in tariffs. These oblige electricity companies to pay people for the power they produce at home. The money will come from their customers in the form of higher bills. It would make sense, if we didn't know that the technologies the scheme will reward are comically inefficient."

This bloke is the green guru, the environmentalist par excellence, the leader, the oft quoted expert on every green matter. Amazing how he becomes the person who purposely misleads others as soon as he states the obvious - that the fit system is pretty cack whichever way you look at it, and especially when it involves a shift of cash from those unable to afford it to line the pockets of those who can afford to shell out several grand.

Hi Graham

Please referer to the post above (#87) ... it addresses your concerns also ....

Remember, the article 'said' £8.6bn, not 'up to' or 'over' or any reference to question the (exact) amount over any period other than on which the source data is based, or any other form of disclaimer .... the source of the value has been identified, the transfer of wealth is 'said', the implication is that all of the (exact figure) £8.6bn is therefore transferred was 'written', 'stated' or 'said' .... there is really no other rational view which can reasonably be taken which is based purely on the evidence at hand, this being the article and it's source ....

HTH
Z

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi Cardew

There is no 'disingenous nonsense', neither intended or implied in the previous posts to which you are referring,
Z

Hi Z,

You know full well that the criticism of the FIT scheme by GM and others is that ‘the poor’ contribute to the high FIT subsidy.

No amount of semantic juggling over the statements by GM(or anyone else) could be construed as meaning ‘only the poor’ contribute.

Even if you wish to believe that nonsensical argument, you cannot deny that the thrust of his(and others) criticism of the FIT scheme is very clearly that the poor subsidise the well off, and PV is an inefficient technology in UK because etc etc.

KeenToMakeSavings

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya Ian, I appreciate you feel a little hard done by, but remember that PV (unlike loft insulation etc) won't reduce your energy consumption, instead it makes it a bit greener. Nothing wrong with that, and that is why I feel support for it is justified. But for the purposes of earning you some money, it is no different to you pointing out that you don't have £5k to pop into a high savings account (if there are any these days) or £10k to buy a car. This doesn't mean that the financial package or the car dealer is mistreating you.

In the long run, hopefully PV will roll out to more and more properties, but since the subsidy is dropping (as well as the cost), you may never find a point where you can invest using someone else's money.

Hmmmm ..... that last paragraph has given me an idea. I hesitate to mention it, but since you have always taken what I've said in the manner it was given, then I'll risk this dodgy advice, though I'm not really comfortable with it, if I'm honest ...

Rent a Roof (RaR)!

You may be able to find a company that will install a system on your roof, and make their money back from the FITs and export income. Leaving you with the leccy savings. Hard to guess what you'll save, maybe £100pa (£70 to £150). But this is very, very speculative.

There are several threads on here about RaR's. It's a really big decision, so you'll need to think carefully about giving a firm a 20 year lease on your roof. Can't stress enough, I'm not recommending this, only pointing out the option. And I'll probably get a load of stick just for mentioning the idea.

Mart.

PS. I take your point about PVGIS, I calculated my investment at 90% of PVGIS climate just in case. Last year I hit 99% of target. I think you are wise to consider everything, but I doubt any variances will be too substantial, but we are back to averaging and your concerns regarding the early years. Tricky. M.

Hi Mart, A couple of years ago I did have a R-a-R agreement with British Gas - all signed up and ready for an installation date. But first the legal eagles at my mortgage lender (Northern Rock) didn't like some of the terms in the BG contract. BG said they'd had the same objections from other lenders so were getting their legal team to amend the standard contract. While this was in progress, the government announced the first slashing of the FIT payments with only about 6 weeks notice before the claims deadline so BG pulled out and wrote to me cancelling the contract on the grounds that they could not complete it or any of their other R-a-R contracts within the short time frame.

I know the short notice of this FIT cut was then challenged in the High Court and an extension was granted but that wasn't enough to persuade BG to re-enter the R-a-R market.

Since then I've carried out periodic searches on the internet for companies offering R-a-R schemes including following links from Which? and other sources but every company I have spoken to who claims to offer R-a-R schemes has said they don't offer them as far north as us here in Cumbria.

So another dead-end! But thanks for mentioning it anyway.

Ian

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Hi Z,

No amount of semantic juggling over the statements by GM(or anyone else) could be construed as meaning ‘only the poor’ contribute.

Quite the contrary, as I have been pointing out all weekend, and Zeupater has set out in great detail - there is no other way to interpret GM's statement. No semantics, no juggling, just straight forward reasonableness.

As I have said many times, you simply can't dodge out of this one.

Cardew wrote: »

Hi Z,

You know full well that the criticism of the FIT scheme by GM and others is that ‘the poor’ contribute to the high FIT subsidy.

But this criticism is simply engineered to create division and diversion.

Vast amounts of subsidies are being paid, and will be paid for the two major energy sources to be rolled out, nuclear and large scale wind (on-shore and off). None of this is paid to the poor, none of it is paid to any households.

So you criticise FITs yet it's far fairer than subsidising industries.

To demonstrate your hypocrisy further, let's examine two of your popular arguments:

1. Firstly that RaR's are bad as it takes FITs from households and gives it to private companies.

2. That domestic FITs should instead be paid to companies running a small number of solar farms in the south west.

It seems that you are simply trying to play to the audience, without any consistent approach. Other than to try to knock PV/FITs at every turn.

Lastly, I appreciate that you don't like being criticised, but don't shoot the messenger. I can't mythbust you without the myths, I can't laugh at you, without you posting jokes. Can I?

Mart.