Quote for solar PV

Crowmann

Time OP had a look at the endless threads on this topic as its been covered to death.

May I summarise however to avoid the 'shall I shant I' oooh maybe but on the other hand type posts.

Dont. Simple as that - without a meaningful FIT (its not even now) the economics of PV are pretty non existant. The PV you see currently being installed is due to planning requirements.

Martyn1981

Cottage_Economy wrote: »

I have the option to go a bit higher, possibly another couple of panels, but is it worth going higher if I don't get the cap raised? Yes, it will help in the winter but could be overkill in the summer as I could be wasting far more than using or exporting (and I wonder if the quoted inverter would need to be changed as a result). Also, not sure if you have to start the application process again if the cap is raised on the basis of 6kWp, or whether DNO will accept the installer simply updating the figures to include the extra panels retrospectively? One installer told me he has no way of knowing what the result would be - it is a simple yes/no with no information. So I wouldn't be told "yes, you can do up to 6.5/7/8". Just a flat yes or no to the applied 6.

Only chatting, so don't take this as fact as DNO's may vary and I'm talking about 2012, but when I applied, I had to supply electronic copies of the UK approval of the three inverters I had at the time, and the sum of those inverters was what I was given permission for. Soooooooooooo I got the impression that they were approving a specific request, with specific equipment and sizes not a general request.

On the subject of going even bigger, whilst I'm a fan of going big, you also need to be sensible at this point in time given the FiT deadline, and make sure whatever you do has the best chance of getting through. Don't push your luck!

Cottage_Economy wrote: »

Without wishing to stir a honest's nest of opinion, I'm also trying to consider what the impact would be if solar power users end up paying penalties for being low grid users as a result of OFGEM's targeted charging review. It is going to do something, just don't know the scale of it.

If the savings up on this thread are going to be more realistically £200-£250 for me a year plus FITS, and a charge wipes out the FITs benefit and maybe a bit more, is it still worth me spending a lot of money on this system?

Again, just opinion, but I'd hope that any changes are not retrospective, so any contract you get, should match the other million FiT contracts, and be safe ..... hopefully.

But, will you become a low user? Will any of us become low users in the long term? With leccy cars and heat pumps, I suspect the generators and suppliers will do nicely, and most likely see an increase in consumption, even if some of us use a little less.

My personal number crunching is that if I add a battery I will import approx 1,000kWh's less pa, but an EV will consume 2,000kWh's, half from PV/batt in the better 6 months, and half as E7 import in the bottom months, when PV and batts will be used up already, so my import overall won't fall any further.

But ..... the petrol refining industry and petrol stations ...... now they are in for a right carpy time of it!

Cottage_Economy

Crowmann wrote: »

Time OP had a look at the endless threads on this topic as its been covered to death.

I have read them, and the OFGEM consultation and the solar trade organisations response, etc,etc. There is no firm conclusion on anything and no-one actually knows yet.

What I do know is that I used to work for a sector skills council that used to prat around doing this kind of stuff and most consultations were a sham as the decisions had already been made, but there was a process to follow to make it look like everyone's opinion had been considered.

The only saving grace was that it used to take a long time to get anything done (most managers were trying to run down the clock until early retirement), so much so that often unexpected events, like changes in government, overtook the issue and it got shelved.

So, as with everything "you pays your money, you takes your choice."

It might work out, it might not.

Cottage_Economy

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Again, just opinion, but I'd hope that any changes are not retrospective, so any contract you get, should match the other million FiT contracts, and be safe ..... hopefully.

Oh I know, it's the possible 'penalty' for being a low user that I'm thinking about. But as I said above, until it happens, no-one knows.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But, will you become a low user? Will any of us become low users in the long term? With leccy cars and heat pumps, I suspect the generators and suppliers will do nicely, and most likely see an increase in consumption, even if some of us use a little less.

Very true.

Cottage_Economy

By the way, I should say that any money saved on electric plus the FITs payments are going as extra pension payments, which we'd get tax relief on.

So, right now I'm trying to decide whether to get the panels and drip feed the savings/FITs money into pensions over the next 10-15 years, with the option of installing batteries at some point in the future to extent our use outside daylight hours, or not do it and dump the money into pensions now.

mmmmikey

Hi again


Looking at this from a high-level there are probably as many reasons why you might not see your money back with the panels as there are why you might make a profit.


If you look at this purely as an investment, that is hardly very attractive.


If you look at this as doing something green to save the planet, as long as you can afford it then it starts to make sense.


So given your last post about pensions for me this would be an easy decision. Don't allow yourself to be seduced by all the possibilities of making a profit from the panels (which is very easy to do once you've seen a few salespeople and canvassed a few enthusiasts online) and put the money into your pension.


That doesn't preclude you from buying panels at a later date from future savings but does tick the box of helping to beef up your pension pot.


Good luck and hope your head isn't spinning too much

Martyn1981

Crowmann wrote: »

Dont. Simple as that - without a meaningful FIT (its not even now) the economics of PV are pretty non existant. The PV you see currently being installed is due to planning requirements.

Clearly we have different views on investments and income.

If I could invest £6,667.50 today, for a 20yr annuity paying out £605pa, or 9.1% index linked, and that will then pay out a lower sum for years 21-40, I would.


I note a different approach to this thread.

- Usually the OP arrives with a high quote,
- numerous PV'ers suggest they seek a lower/better quote, of around £X,
- you advise that we are all mad, and that such prices are not possible,
- the OP comes back with lower quotes of about £X

but on this occasion the OP has come straight in with the £X quotes, a possible clue being:

Cottage_Economy wrote: »

Thanks Pinnks and Martyn. My gut feeling was that they were about right based on what I've been reading here over the last few years.

so now you are suggesting they don't go ahead as the economics are non-existent.

I don't get why you've been so negative these last few years on PV. The returns look fine to me, not great, not poor, and that's before we even touch upon the green & ethical bonuses.

Come on and cheer up. We're into the last month of FiT's before the government turn their backs on us (whilst still offering nuclear the equivalent of a 5p/kWh FiT for 35yrs), so we might as well smile and enjoy it.

mmmmikey

.....hmmmm, and now I'm thinking I too may have been a bit negative! I guess a lot of it comes down to your appetite for risk and how secure your pension is at the moment.

Cottage_Economy

mmmmikey wrote: »

Hi again


Looking at this from a high-level there are probably as many reasons why you might not see your money back with the panels as there are why you might make a profit.


If you look at this purely as an investment, that is hardly very attractive.


If you look at this as doing something green to save the planet, as long as you can afford it then it starts to make sense.

It's a bit of both, and that's why it is so tough.

We bought our smallholding so we could have more control over our lives. We wanted to raise our own animals so we knew what they ate, where they slept, that they had good lives outside with their mates, not in cramped sheds. We wanted to grow more of our own fruit and veg, to not be so reliant on supermarkets. We want to be more on the side of producing than consuming. The solar panels would fit in with that, an overall desire to be a little more independent and responsible for our own lives.

BUT we are not great earners, never will be, so we need our money to be able to do better or work differently. We'll never be financially independent, but we can be more comfortable than if we'd never tried anything at all. We're willing to take some risks to achieve that, and solar might be one of those risks.

Martyn1981

mmmmikey wrote: »

.....hmmmm, and now I'm thinking I too may have been a bit negative! I guess a lot of it comes down to your appetite for risk and how secure your pension is at the moment.

I think there's a difference between negative and realistic. You set out a balanced position based on boosting early pension investments, v's what is basically a long term annuity. I don't think there's a right nor wrong answer, and what's so good about this thread is that we have an OP who is already well informed*, and IMO, level headed, so we can give suggestions and thoughts (not really advice) without worrying about misleading them or pushing too hard in any one direction.

It's a shame FiT's is all but done, as discussions like these are very enjoyable, and I do like a bit of simple number crunching to keep those few remaining brain cells working.

* Edit - Just to say, no insult intended against any fellow PV'ers, it's just that most on here (and myself on other forums) started out with little knowledge, and typically not the best quotes ..... shall we say!