Solar panels: a warning

EricMears

One advantage of having a shallow roof is that our panels are completely invisible from our own garden.

mickyduck

My roof is completely covered in panels... I actually like the FIT and hot water... how much time do I spend looking at my roof none, how much time did I before installation none. I would always buy a property with panels as opposed to one without provided I was buying the panels and they were not RAR.

ed110220

DKLS wrote: »

I would have a ground array system, but simply wouldnt have roof mounted panels as they look so !!!!!!, the last house I viewed was ruined by solar panels it was a victorian villa, and every aspect of curb appeal had been ruined. I am yet to see an attractive installation in this country.

Saving a few quid isnt enough of an incentive to ruin a house for me.

I actually think they can look rather good, especially on simple pitch roofs typical of mid-20th century houses where you can have a block covering almost the whole roof. On older (and sometimes newer) houses with more complicated roofs they can look a bit silly scattered about.

Also, I think the typical FIT payments are more than a "couple" of quid.

WestonDave

You struggle to see ours - the garden slopes away from the house so you have to get right on the fence line before you are far enough back to see them, they are on the sides away from the road so unless you are at certain angles down the street you can't see them, and in any event they are black panels on a black tile roof so its not such a change anyway. Hardly worth worrying about!

Martyn1981

Actually DKLS may be on to something, statistically speaking.

According to a survey last year - "Solar panels have surprisingly been named as the most desirable property ‘extra’ in a new survey."

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/property-and-mortgages/buying-and-selling-property/17321/solar-panels-bin-collections-most-desirable-property-extras-revealed

If 38% put PV first, then that suggests at least 38% would like PV. Give it a few years and PV will probably be desired by more than 50% of housebuyers. Next, remember that not all properties are suitable for PV, probably only about 20% are.

So DKLS (and others) will be in a minority, desiring a majority of properties.

Given that PV will probably push house values up a little (energy savings and investment returns), then non-PV may push prices down a little due to comparably higher energy bills, and lower desirability.

So, a minority, desiring a majority of properties that may have slightly lower values. Could work out well.

Mart.

Cardew

On the other hand!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209909/Solar-panels-ruin-picturesque-street.html

How much would it have increased the value of this property!!

ed110220

Cardew wrote: »

On the other hand!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209909/Solar-panels-ruin-picturesque-street.html

How much would it have increased the value of this property!!

Typical Daily Mail scaremongering, probably written for the benefit of people who think global warming is a hoax perpetrated by world communism.

Cardew

What has the Daily Mail's reporting got to do with the situation?

The panels look absolutely dreadful and ruin the appearance of the house and street.

P.S.
You are out of date. It is no longer 'global warming' but 'climate change' so it covers the world getting warmer/colder/wetter/dryer!

ed110220

Cardew wrote: »

What has the Daily Mail's reporting got to do with the situation?

The panels look absolutely dreadful and ruin the appearance of the house and street.

P.S.
You are out of date. It is no longer 'global warming' but 'climate change' so it covers the world getting warmer/colder/wetter/dryer!

People do all sorts of hideous things to their homes and I don't think this is nearly one of the worst, therefore I would say that it's an example of the Daily Mail's long-running agitation against anything to do with global warming.

Actually, climate scientists have used the two terms for several decades, yet recently the populist/sensationalist media has started claiming one has been changed to another in another layer to the conspiracy. If they looked at the titles and abstracts of papers back to the 1970s they'd find it wasn't true, but that would make a dull story and not sell many newspapers.

Technically of course, global warming causes climate change as climate isn't just temperature, it's rain, wind etc.

EricMears

In the wider shots included in the DM story, it's hard to believe the street is actually a conservation area ! TV aerials, overhead wires, wires tacked onto walls, drainpipes, ugly street furniture, variety of coloured renders etc etc. Solar Panels are probably the least offensive item there !

'Climate Change' has been happening for aeons and will continue. Very rare that we actually hear of a result that is the highest (or lowest) ever . Usually described as "highest for seventy years" or "lowest in last hundred years" - which sort of implies that just outside the quoted range there was an even more extreme event.