On Apr 6, 5:58*pm, "tim...." wrote:
"David WE Roberts" wrote in ...

Last time I looked at solar panel threads there was an overwhelming view
that it just didn't make financial sense and the calculations generally
didn't take into account the fact that you had to recover your capital and
the interest on your capital (if you just saved/invested it) to break
even, before you started to make any savings.

Now the recent discussion seems to be more about the immoral use of the
subsidies than about the sums not adding up.

When did this change?

I don't think it did.

ISTM that the people who think that "the sums don't add up" still think
that.

The fact that commercial operations think otherwise suggest that the
negative opinions are formed from out of date data. *I certainly see people
make comments such as this is "immature" technology when in fact PV cells
were invented more than 30 years ago and the technology is anything but
immature.

Having said that, it still seems to me that on most "at the coal face"
quotes the finances are marginal, but I suspect that this is more down to
the installers inflating the installation costs whilst using smoke and
mirrors to make the profits seem larger than they are at that cost, just
like they always do with "home improvement" installations, but unlike other
home improvements this one lives and dies on its financial benefits as the
other "user" benefits are zero.

If I had a suitable roof, I wouldn't enter into any deal other than one
where the installer takes all of the risk. *If you can't get someone to
offer you a deal on that basis then you know that any "purchased"
installation is being oversold

tim

Your electricity supplier may well offer just such a deal. It's called
"rent a roof".
You get free electricity, they get all the subsidised dosh.
There's lots of companies out there wants your roof.
Problem arises when you want to sell your house.