Solar Panel Guide Discussion

Dave_Fowler wrote: »

Hi,

I changed supplier almost immediately after having the panels installed (my capped rate was ending and I could get a better deal elsewhere) I phoned the old and new suppliers to ask what I should do. Both said that at that time (July 2010) there was no automatic mechanism for changing who pays the FITs when you change supplier and that the old supplier would continue to pay FITs without any problem.

This has worked ok for a year now, and I'm just about to change supplier again.

Dave F

Thanks Dave, that's very interesting and certainly simplifies matters. I wonder whether the system will change.

jgrove wrote: »

it would seem that many people are upset because PV systems are generally installed by those who can afford the huge initial outlay.

Am i correct in thinking that because i would be paid a fixed sum for the power i produce and therefore reducing the money my power company take from me, i am therefore putting fuel prices up for those that cannot afford to have panels fitted?

Er, yes and no. The net loss to the UK over the next 20 years of the solar PV system is £8.2bn. The way the scheme works almost guarantees that the winners will be homesun etc, Michael Eavis and that bloke with the huge mansion he owns outright with a south facing roof. The scheme is not funded out of taxation but a rise in the electricity bills of those without the panels, the losers will be the little old lady in the bungalow with the east facing roof, those that rent, etc.

jgrove wrote: »

Surely if we applied that principle to almost anything we buy the same would apply?

Not really, because most things you buy are financially viable and driven by development and market forces. See my burger analogy above for an idea of how FiTs fit into this.

jgrove wrote: »

What is clear is that i am not totally convinced by some of the figures they seem to generate.

You're right to be. As I mentioned in my post above, salesmen have been hugely exaggerating the benefits. Have a listen to the findings of a Which? investigation.

jgrove wrote: »

What i am interested in is simple can i produce more power than i use?

Yes, at mid-day you'll be producing enough to boil a kettle. Providing you fancy a nice hot cup of tea exactly when the sun comes out, then the answer is yes. If you use electricity to light your house and watch television in the evening, the answer is probably no.

jgrove wrote: »

How much would i get for the extra power and for how long?

I've leave that one to Grahamc2003, Cardew or Zapateur - they're better at these ones!

jgrove wrote: »

If less power is produced during the winter do the costs still offset themselves.?

Hardly any power will be produced during the winter

Solar module manufacturers quote figures for the “peak power” of their products. These are what they would generate if one kilowatt per square metre of the sun’s energy were to fall on them.

But for most of England and Wales, the summer insolation is a fraction of that figure. London gets 198W and Edinburgh 172W in July. In December, the figures are 22 and 13 respectively - a lot less - and that’s when you need more power.

As a guide, 22 watts is enough to power one low energy CFL lightbulb.
If you have 4 square metres of panel, you might just be able to light an incandescent lightbulb in the middle of a sunny December day.

jgrove wrote: »

One of my friends who has a 4kw system has said yes to all of these questions.

One of your friends is either parroting a salesman or is desperate to justify their outlay.

Bingobongo wrote: »

To take part in this scheme is to be party to what is, in effect, a massive swindle of grand proportions.
Essentially the only way that this renewable energy (oxymoron alert) con is possible is by the massive subsidies ordered by the climate hysterics in government.
These idiots have fallen for the global warming con and think it's a good idea to give those right-on middle classes with spare cash in the bank to go out and buy solar panels and pocket any cash earned via the feed-in tariff scheme. All this profit is paid for by those who cannot afford to buy solar panels namely millions of people in low income jobs and pensioners and other unfortunates.

Well, I probably wouldn't entirely share your view on climate change, but the rest is right.

Bingobongo wrote: »

But never mind you're saving the planet right and making money at the same time.

Actually, they're not even doing that! The "carbon savings" from the Great PV Swindle are infinitesimally small.

The government expects this scheme to save 7m tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2020(. Assuming, generously, that the rate of installation keeps accelerating, this suggests a saving of around 20m tonnes of CO2 by 2030. The estimated price by then is £8.6bn. This means it’ll cost around £430 to save one tonne of carbon dioxide.

Last year the consultancy company McKinsey published a table of cost comparisons. It found that you could save a tonne of CO2 for £3 by investing in geothermal energy, or for £8 by building a nuclear power plant. Insulating commercial buildings costs nothing; in fact it saves £60 for every tonne of CO2 you reduce; replacing incandescent lightbulbs with LEDs saves £80 per tonne. The government predicts that the tradeable value of the carbon saved by its £8.6bn scheme will be £420m.

The German government made the same mistake ten years ago. By 2006 its generous feed-in tariffs had stimulated 230,000 solar roofs, at a cost of E1.2bn. Their total contribution to the country’s electricity supply was 0.4%. Their total contribution to carbon savings, as a paper in the journal Energy Policy points out, is zero

And remember, that's from pro-greeny and climate change advocate George Monbiot. If HE thinks it's a bad thing, you can imagine how bad it really is!

Incidentally, if anyone's wondering where I'm coming from in respect to climate change, personally I think we're stuffed. People are too ignorant, selfish and stupid and wasteful. It's easier to believe unqualified hacks like James Delingpole than real scientists, for the same reason people believe in homoeopathy, religion and conspiracy theories. It's literally a no-brainer - why do all that awkward thinking stuff when there are unqualified bloggers and newspaper columnists to help you avoid that?

That said, whatever we should or shouldn't be doing, there are literally thousands of better ways to spend £8.2bn of other people's money than this crazy scheme.

Oooh! I think I've just thought of a clever(?) analogy!
You know how traditionally the first class seats on airlines (and to some extent trains) have heavily subsidised cattle class?
Well FiTs are kind of like that, but in reverse. Imagine if a hefty tax were levied on healthy food and children's clothing in order to massively subsidise Bollinger Champagne? Would there still be so many enthusiasts?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that precisely what FiTs does but for energy?

Louise_Walker wrote: »

Hello,

I just spent a long time writing about some prices we received but I was logged out. Rather frustrating.

Anyway, my husband and I are retired and want solar panels. We have a big roof but not a particularly big budget. We looked at free offers but decided that buying was probably better. We had real problems getting prices, and from the article I guess we're not the only ones. The best ones we have so far are from isis solar. I've listed them below and wondered if anyone had better ones they could share?

Thank you!

3.96kw = £11,950
3.60kw = £11,235
3.24kw = £10,400
2.88kw = £9,365
2.52kw = £8,680
2.16kw = £7,925
1.80kw = £7,255
1.44kw = £6,895

I wish I'd got mine that cheap but I jumped in too quickly without researching properly. Worth checking out Tesco's prices at http://www.tescohomeefficiency.com/electricity-pricing/ - 3.91kW comes out at £11,599 after the 20% discount + clubcard points. I don't know whether anyone here has any experience of Tesco solar panels.