Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

Sterlingtimes wrote: »

I do not buy the "wealthy" argument. Most panels I see are mounted on very average houses.

Locally, I can't work out what is going on. I live near a park, so the houses around me are more of a semi-circle than a circle, but in that area of about 1,000 houses, Wifey and I recently spotted our 4th PV system (including us).

But one mile to the East there are about 30 systems on the rooves of approx 80 social housing properties.

One mile to the west, where a large estate of flats and townhouses were built (with, I think affordable housing) about 20 systems sit on top of what I'd estimate are 50 households.

One mile further to the west, where my sister lives, and properties are 'silly' expensive, we are back to very few PV systems, though there are also a few ST systems.

I don't get about as much now, as I'm uncomfortable in a car (back problems) but Wifey often tells me about how many systems there are in the S. Wales valley towns, putting Cardiff to shame. Perhaps the lower priced housing means that residents have more disposable income?

Mart.

Martyn1981

nigelpm wrote: »

Interestingly, the only party that gets this and mentioned it in their GE manifesto was UKIP.

Would that be the manifesto where they claimed AGW didn't exist and coal generation needed support to level the playing field?

Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF

Mart.

Sterlingtimes

I live in an over-grown village. There is a tendency for better-off people locally to migrate from cities to live in urban villages (Balsall Common, Wellesbourne, Hatton, Southam etc.). Walking and driving around I see very light uptake on solar panels. I have also done a Google satellite walk and found uptake is very limited. And any logic would indicate that these areas are prime for solar given that the investment will be more affordable.

In areas where there is a predominance of social housing (Tilehill Coventry), I see a roughly equivalent level of up-take, i.e. the occasion house here and there which has roof panels.

New build houses are not fitted with panels at the time of their building.

My view is that the tariff should remain higher rather than lower to in draw in new investors.

I think that new build houses should incorporate solar panels.

Martyn1981

Sterlingtimes wrote: »

In areas where there is a predominance of social housing (Tilehill Coventry), I see a roughly equivalent level of up-take, i.e. the occasion house here and there which has roof panels.

I think that new build houses should incorporate solar panels.

News item today, that you may be interested in.

Solar PV most popular technology among housing associations

Mart.

nigelpm

Martyn1981 wrote: »

What would you class as a slight reward then? If we deduct 5% for depreciation, and 2% for a replacement inverter, then that leaves 1 to 3% as a reward, based on the government targets ..... assuming my memory is correct.

Mart.

a few % above base rate after all costs - I'd say 5-6% tax free risk free would be generous.

The current 8-15% (I estimated my PV ROI to be 14.2%) is ludicrous.

nigelpm

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Would that be the manifesto where they claimed AGW didn't exist and coal generation needed support to level the playing field?


Mart.

Don't want to get into a massive Political debate an no doubt that's what a few of the uninformed members think (and probably there'd be plenty in the other political parties as well) but it wasn't in the manifesto.

Martyn1981

nigelpm wrote: »

Don't want to get into a massive Political debate an no doubt that's what a few of the uninformed members think (and probably there'd be plenty in the other political parties as well) but it wasn't in the manifesto.

Ok fair point, they didn't say they don't believe in AGW in the manifesto, but that appears to be the party's viewpoint.

But in the manifesto they were clear about getting rid of the Climate Change Act, and supporting coal generation.

Mart.

nigelpm

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I can't follow this anymore! It seems like you are agreeing with the current returns numerically, but disagreeing with them verbally.

Are you suggesting 12% to 13% is fair (costs (7%) + 5 to 6%)?

Mart.

No, I disagree with your costs number - in fact I wouldn't use it at all. I think it confuses the point.

I'd look at it this way with very basic numbers:

Take £6,000 investment in 4Kw PV system. Over its 20 year life it returns £900 p.a. (assume £700 from FIT, £200 from elec)

Nominal ROI is 15%.

I'm suggesting if FIT becomes 700 * 0.65 = £455 you are still returning : £655 p.a. - i.e. nominal ROI of 10.9%

Appreciate I've simplified all the numbers but the point is it very clearly indicates the scheme is too generous - which is probably why we are all here to some degree anyway.

nigelpm

In fact just having "some fun" playing around with numbers and if you could get a PV system for £5k and made 50% usage of your electricity you'd still return 3% over 25 years!

That's almost in territory of panels being cheap enough to forgo the FIT!

That's shocked me to be honest.

Great progress.

tunnel

Did anyone watch this this morning?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05whf7b/dont-get-done-get-dom-series-9-12-solar-panels