Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

I have to say that irrespective of any small differences in opinion, and interpretations of thoughts and ideas, what is evident from this discussion is the general positivity towards PV these days.

I was pondering my system, and whilst it may seem a bit OTT, I'm only utilising (most of) the rooves on a normal 3 bed semi, with compromises - bay roof on front obstructing 1/3, and a Velux on the back obstructing 1/7. And yet last year generated the equivalent of 150% of our annual leccy consumption. Perhaps 120% of an average household. All done using average 2011/12 technology on non-(due)south facing rooves that have no alternative use nor value. [There are high performing 4kWp south facing systems that can match it (and for far less investment) - lucky gits.]

Watching all the technologies slowly increase in efficiency, new ideas and technologies being researched, and the development of collaborative technology (storage, diversion etc) has been fascinating.

PV may be only one tool in the new energy toolbox, but it's certainly one of the more interesting ones. Perhaps I really am a geek!

Mart.

1961Nick

zeupater wrote: »

Hi


For now, for the sake of the sanity of all reading this thread, let's just park the discussion as a stalemate between face-saving and data supported logic ...

Z

Agreed, being lured into defending statements you've made on my behalf is becoming rather tiresome.

I'm sure we'll meet again!:laugh:

zeupater

1961Nick wrote: »

Agreed, being lured into defending statements you've made on my behalf is becoming rather tiresome.

I'm sure we'll meet again!:laugh:

Hi

So a different discussion just to save face ... In simple terms, Clarification to a point regarding efficiency was requested and what came back was erroneous. At all stages I've attempted to quote comments made before analysis in order to ensure that the answer can be seen in context - at no stage have I made any statement on your behalf, how could I?, and have not attempted to 'lure' you into defending anything which you claim that I wrote ... why would anyone expect to do that anyway.

What's happened is that having made an ambiguous statement which clarification showed to be wrong, there's a total inability to accept the fact. instead we've seen attempts to change the discussion in order to save face ... even after an offer to park the issue attempts are made to favourably spin the issue ...

For the record, my own view (along with many others on this forum) is that installing RaR panels is a particularly risky decision for anyone considering selling their property for the very reason you raised and there are plenty of discussions over the years which support this. If, when clarification was requested, or at any point afterwards 'efficiency' was accepted as being income in terms of (£/Wp) or maximising income potential through specification of premium panels it would have been a less contentious issue, although being totally irrelevant due to the homeowner not having paid for the panels (RaR) ...

As part of the purchase negotiations there was always the possibility of negotiating with the vendor regarding the outright purchase of the panels from the RaR scheme operator ... you might have ended up with a system costing more than what's available today, but still have more years (>20) to run on the FiT scheme than a newly installed system .... at somewhere around 3x the FiT income/kWh that could even be a more 'efficient' use of capital than simply ripping out what's there and replacing it with premium panels ...

Really, if it the case of a personality trait which needs to record wins on a scoreboard, then record a loss as a win, believe that you're right or whatever - it makes little/absolutely no difference ... as for anyone who knows even a little about pv, well, they'll make their own minds up ...

Z

1961Nick

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

......... at no stage have I made any statement on your behalf, how could I?, and have not attempted to 'lure' you into defending anything which you claim that I wrote ... why would anyone expect to do that anyway.

Z

.....are you sure about that..??

Here's one example for you..

... and concluding that placing a 4kWp system on the same roof area as a current 2kWp system would require a panel efficiency increase of 50%-100% ?? ....

I really can't be bothered to trawl through the rest of the thread because as said previously, it's becoming tiresome.

zeupater

1961Nick wrote: »

.....are you sure about that..??

Here's one example for you..

... and concluding that placing a 4kWp system on the same roof area as a current 2kWp system would require a panel efficiency increase of 50%-100% ?? ....

I really can't be bothered to trawl through the rest of the thread because as said previously, it's becoming tiresome.

Hi

Yes, totally sure .... in context this is what was written ...

zeupater wrote: »

....
Anyway, directly addressing the referenced post .... where is there a leap between reading this ...

1961Nick wrote: »

... An old 2kW array may be great for the 'Rent a roof' company receiving over 40p FIT, but that same area would now accommodate a 3-4kw system.

... and concluding that placing a 4kWp system on the same roof area as a current 2kWp system would require a panel efficiency increase of 50%-100% ?? ....

... so fully meeting what you're questioning, that is, in full and therefore in context .... "At all stages I've attempted to quote comments made before analysis in order to ensure that the answer can be seen in context - at no stage have I made any statement on your behalf, how could I?, and have not attempted to 'lure' you into defending anything which you claim that I wrote ... why would anyone expect to do that anyway." ... the quote is there, the context is there - and when seen in full makes absolute sense ... It's also relevant to note that the question posed above was never answered ...

... if it's becoming tiresome, put up evidence to support your claims, especially the above ... "An old 2kW array may be great for the 'Rent a roof' company receiving over 40p FIT, but that same area would now accommodate a 3-4kw system" ... when relating to panels which were installed by a RaR scheme provider under the FiT scheme ... if you can't then why continue attempting to spin what you've claimed utilising very selective quotation of text ? ....

I really don't understand your point .... we almost certainly agree that RaR doesn't suit everyone and is likely to have an adverse affect on the selling of properties. However, you still seem to be more concerned with achieving a 'win' in a debate where your proposition, in context, is bordering on ridiculous ... If you have issues with the relative performance of panels which were on a bungalow which you looked at for your parents and they are the reason for the purchase not going ahead then deal with them ... If you were upset that the panels installed weren't 'efficient' enough, then take it up with the installer who selected them instead of more efficient ones at the time ... I really don't understand the need to maximise generation by uplifting 2kWp to 4kWp as the most likely consequence is that you'd simply export a higher %age ... If it's maximising FiT income, how is a 4kWp array installed today going to better a 2kWp one installed a couple of years ago ...

The only facts which are really relevant is that someone chose to select a RaR provider who chose to supply systems with the panels which were actually fitted and above that, personally chose to commit to a long-term lease contract with restrictive 'get out' clauses, probably doing so without even seeking 3rd party advice ... Whatever the efficiency of the panels, the return on investment for the scheme operator would have been a factor, therefore the £/Wp for the panels would have been taken into consideration at the time .... and, most importantly, buying out a 2kWp system paying in the region of 50p/kWh for the next 20years+ at this stage of the contract just to replace it with a 4kWp system (using superefficient panels or whatever makes it fit the space available) paying around 15p/kWh for the next 20years would almost certainly be a total financial folly ...

HTH
Z

1961Nick

1961Nick wrote: »

'Rent a roof' schemes have possibly made UK house buyers sceptical about paying a premium for a house with solar panels. I don't know what the ratio is between 'rent a roof' & outright purchase, but in some areas near me it must be 10:1. House purchasers might not want to be saddled with an inefficient & not very aesthetically pleasing installation for the next 15 years.

Forums are places to express opinions & this is mine. I stand by this opinion which is essentially about the effect of solar panel installation on property prices.

ed110220

1961Nick wrote: »

Forums are places to express opinions & this is mine. I stand by this opinion which is essentially about the effect of solar panel installation on property prices.

I think the bigger issue is the extreme conservatism of the British housing market, compared with other countries (such as the USA mentioned before) which is obvious in everything from building styles and methods to valuation. Houses are valued in a very traditional way and solar PV is still relatively new and relatively uncommon so it probably doesn't appear on the valuation radar when people compare houses by size, similarity etc. Which is in a way rather odd as it is one of the few features in a home that actually has a value that's easy to quantify.

For example I could spend £5000 on a new bathroom that I think is the bees knees, but another person thinks is hideous and wouldn't spend a penny on. But if I spent it on solar PV, the FIT is £x per year to you, me or Adam, rather than being subjective.

Ed

Dave_Fowler

IRRC, in recent years the RaR companies received a lower rate of FITs income - because of the number of installs they have.

If a house-owner were to subsequently make an outright purchase of the panels from the RaR company would the FITs remain at the lower level or be raised to the 'single install' level? And if it is uprated, at what rate would it be - the current single install rate or the single install rate paid at the original date of installation including the inflationary increases?

If the rate is kept at the low level, the incentive to make the purchase would be lower.

Dave F

zeupater

1961Nick wrote: »

1961Nick wrote: »

'Rent a roof' schemes have possibly made UK house buyers sceptical about paying a premium for a house with solar panels. I don't know what the ratio is between 'rent a roof' & outright purchase, but in some areas near me it must be 10:1. House purchasers might not want to be saddled with an inefficient & not very aesthetically pleasing installation for the next 15 years.

Forums are places to express opinions & this is mine. I stand by this opinion which is essentially about the effect of solar panel installation on property prices.

Hi

Then, whilst standing by the above-quoted opinion, considering the input from a number of members, would there now be a different response if the following question was to be repeated ?

zeupater wrote: »

:think: .... Odd, how do you define inefficient ?? ....

HTH
Z

1961Nick

I'm going to give you something here......

The 50-100% was too much (unless another row of panels is possible which is unlikely). The figure is more like 25-50% & only achievable if another column is possible (quite likely from what I've observed).

The bungalow I looked at was a 38% gain using 2014 kit rather than 2010 (?). Obviously by using the hybrid panels you mentioned the figure could be significantly higher. You mentioned a figure of 70% premium for this technology. Is that 70% more for the full install or 70% more for the panels. Panels appear to be just over 50% of the cost of a typical £4K- £5K 4kW array. (It's not a trick question, I'm genuinely interested)

The system on that bungalow was 'inefficient' for the occupier primarily because the FIT payment was going to a third party for the next 15 years. It would have been an expensive installation (right at the beginning of FIT) so the buyout (if possible) would probably be prohibitively expensive. I liken buying a property with a RaR to buying a property with a sitting tenant who's paying rent to somebody else. In my mind the value of that property was reduced because of that system. With RaR, there is also the possibility that mortgage & conveyance costs could increase because of a more limited choice in the first case & added paperwork in the second instance. Things are getting easier on that front though as pv installations become more mainstream (I asked a solicitor friend about that in case I moved house & wanted to keep the FIT).

Anyway, is there any chance of a :beer: or are we going to carry this on ad-infinitum until the rest of the forum loses the will to live?:laugh: