Solar ... In the news

1961Nick wrote: »

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:

Hi

In order ...

... "38% gain using 2014 kit rather than 2010 (?). " ... is that not a 38% gain made possible by using 2014 panels which are only as efficient as panels available in 2010 that the RaR installer chose not to install, combined with utilising more roof space.

..."Is that 70% more for the full install or 70% more for the panels. " ... depends on the installer and your own negotiating skills. The figure given was for panels as per the example models, but it seems that installers tend to expect premium margins if using premium panels ...

..." was 'inefficient' for the occupier primarily because the FIT payment was going to a third party for the next 15 years" ... I disagree, in terms of getting something for nothing, for the homeowner it was likely the most efficient return on investment possible ... no outlay and a monetary saving - and this is the case whatever the efficiency of the panels or effective use of the available roof area, the ROI only becoming questionable if it impacts negatively on the value of the property should it be sold. I agree that the money goes to a third-party, but consideration must be made to the original decision to go for a RaR system, which in many cases involved the lack of ready capital. On these boards we've had representatives of RaR scheme operators defending what many would regard as outrageous claims on energy savings etc and even had people claiming that installing a RaR system has increased their property value by something like 10-20%, or more .... a further point to make (again) is that early adopters have a 25 year FiT contract, not 20, so even the earliest installations currently have over 20years to run, not 15 ...

..."(I asked a solicitor friend about that in case I moved house & wanted to keep the FIT)" ... In that case, if you still owned the property you'd be entitled to keep the FiT, however, if you build a portfolio of properties with pv above the DECC multi-installation threshold, the tariff for each installation should reduce. Importantly, for the very reason you raised regarding 3rd party payments, you must accept that keeping the FiT is likely to result in a reduction in your own property value ...

HTH
Z