To solar, or not to solar? Cost/benefit is the question!

JSHarris

Netexporter said:

Ten years later and the system is still slightly outperforming their estimates.

They nearly all outperformed the estimates, in those days, because the model used was pessimistic (and based on Sheffield), so any array in the south of the country generally exceeded expectations.

You simply wouldn't believe some of the lies I was told by some suppliers!  The MCS/government model had nothing to do with it, as I was comparing offers using PVGIS, and PVGIS is (in my experience) surprisingly accurate, certainly within a few percent of reality.  Some of the daft performance figures I was quoted by some of the cowboys indicated that they were using panels with 30% to 40% efficiency, so made from unobtainium!

gefnew

like this.

MeteredOut

MSR01 said:

<snip>

I first looked into this one year ago this month and fairly quickly found a good local supplier (an engineering firm who does not pay for a customer services agency) who gave me a very good price (which, compared to the quotes I had from the page one Google search results companies, has given me a fair idea of how expensive customer services agencies are!). I am satisfied these guys are kosha but Real Life happened in a variety of ways and I had to delay. The delay ended up running to 12 months, but they have decided to honour the original quote from a year ago, if I choose to go ahead, now.<snip>

Please do not see this as some sort of altruism on their part. Look at the prices of products from a year ago, and look at them again now.

EDIT: to add important omission

QrizB

MeteredOut said:

MSR01 said:

<snip>

I first looked into this one year ago this month and fairly quickly found a good local supplier (an engineering firm who does not pay for a customer services agency) who gave me a very good price (which, compared to the quotes I had from the page one Google search results companies, has given me a fair idea of how expensive customer services agencies are!). I am satisfied these guys are kosha but Real Life happened in a variety of ways and I had to delay. The delay ended up running to 12 months, but they have decided to honour the original quote from a year ago, if I choose to go ahead, now.<snip>

Please do see this as some sort of altruism on their part. Look at the prices of products from a year ago, and look at them again now.

Agreed.

Not necessarily the best price you could put together, but here's 4.1kWp of panels plus a suitable inverter for less than £1500:

https://www.bimblesolar.com/ongrid/solar-grid-nostorage/3.6kw-Growatt-Hyundai-Bundle

You'd need to add a roof mounting kit, scaffolding and labour but you might see change from £4k.

Reed_Richards

JSHarris said:Some of the daft performance figures I was quoted by some of the cowboys indicated that they were using panels with 30% to 40% efficiency, so made from unobtainium!

Actually not Unobtanium.  Gallium arsenide is one of several III/V semiconductors that would give vastly better efficiencies than silicon solar panels.  But those panels would be prohibitively expensive.  So made from Cantaffordium rather than Unobtainium.