We moved into our two storey, reconstituted stone-built, pitched-roof
house in April.

We decided early on to get as much of our energy as possible from
renewables.

A couple of weeks ago we signed up for a solar heating system. I've
looked at a few and this seems like a very good system.

The marketing wonk who visited us (who had obviously been in the pub
first) declared that our directly west-facing roof would be perfectly
adequate to site the panels. It is a very clear prospect as it faces a
flat field, and there are no trees in the line of sight.

However, when their surveyor came to measure up he said that the
west-facing roof was inadequate and the panels would have to be sited
on the gable-end wall (facing south).

I can't see how this would be an improvement. Even though the panels
would be angled away from the wall (mimicing the roof's pitch) they
would certainly be obscured by the angle of the roof for at least part
of the morning and part of the evening.

Am I wrong? The alternative, according to the surveyor, would be double
the number of panels with half on the east pitch and the other on the
west.

Many thanks

Will.

"Will" wrote:
We moved into our two storey, reconstituted stone-built, pitched-roof
house in April.

We decided early on to get as much of our energy as possible from
renewables.

A couple of weeks ago we signed up for a solar heating system. I've
looked at a few and this seems like a very good system.

Watchdog 'did' the solar energy industry on BBC 1 last Tuesday evening.
Their conclusions were that there a lot of rogue companies, the estimates
for equipment and installation are very inflated (£12,000 in one case for a
non-working system), the claimed energy benefits are often very exaggerated,
the salesmen talk a lot of dishonest rubbish, and a lot of properties are
not suitable. My understanding is that the panels need to be mounted on a
south-facing aspect. Got a long bargepole?

In message , Curious
writes
"Will" wrote:
We moved into our two storey, reconstituted stone-built, pitched-roof
house in April.

We decided early on to get as much of our energy as possible from
renewables.

A couple of weeks ago we signed up for a solar heating system. I've
looked at a few and this seems like a very good system.

Watchdog 'did' the solar energy industry on BBC 1 last Tuesday evening.
Their conclusions were that there a lot of rogue companies, the estimates
for equipment and installation are very inflated (£12,000 in one case for a
non-working system), the claimed energy benefits are often very exaggerated,
the salesmen talk a lot of dishonest rubbish, and a lot of properties are
not suitable. My understanding is that the panels need to be mounted on a
south-facing aspect. Got a long bargepole?


We also had a discussion in here following my father having signed up to
such a system

This was £7000

Say a payback period of 10 years being reasonable, it has to save £700 /
year to pay itself back. Given that it's only saving (optimistically )
70% of hot water, not central heating or gas for cooking, it's patently
impossible for it to be viable

--
geoff

In message , raden
writes
In message , Curious
writes

"Will" wrote:
We moved into our two storey, reconstituted stone-built, pitched-roof
house in April.

We decided early on to get as much of our energy as possible from
renewables.

A couple of weeks ago we signed up for a solar heating system. I've
looked at a few and this seems like a very good system.

Watchdog 'did' the solar energy industry on BBC 1 last Tuesday evening.
Their conclusions were that there a lot of rogue companies, the estimates
for equipment and installation are very inflated (£12,000 in one case for a
non-working system), the claimed energy benefits are often very exaggerated,
the salesmen talk a lot of dishonest rubbish, and a lot of properties are
not suitable. My understanding is that the panels need to be mounted on a
south-facing aspect. Got a long bargepole?


We also had a discussion in here following my father having signed up
to such a system

This was £7000

Say a payback period of 10 years being reasonable, it has to save £700
/ year to pay itself back. Given that it's only saving (optimistically
) 70% of hot water, not central heating or gas for cooking, it's
patently impossible for it to be viable

Yes, though pay back time is not the only reason people invest in
things.

What's the pay back time on a new car or a new kitchen ?

A better question is probably 'could he have got a better deal ?'.

It's hard to know that without knowing the details of the site, the size
of the system etc, but the very cheapest systems we do are flat plat
2sqm collectors which under a local authority scheme are a bit over
£2,000. At the other end of the domestic scale, we did a 7.2sqm
evacuated tube system we did last week was £3,700 ex VAT, ex cylinder
change. Guess which was better value.

The main overhead is not buying the panels, it's getting people on site,
running the pipes and getting access to the roof with reasonable safety.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , John Beardmore
writes
) 70% of hot water, not central heating or gas for cooking, it's
patently impossible for it to be viable

Yes, though pay back time is not the only reason people invest in
things.

What's the pay back time on a new car or a new kitchen ?

No idea in your circumstances, but it is less well defined than solar

Solar panels have a reasonably well spec'd return


I don't see what my folks signed for as being economically viable

--
geoff

In message , raden
writes
In message , John
Beardmore writes
) 70% of hot water, not central heating or gas for cooking, it's
patently impossible for it to be viable

Yes, though pay back time is not the only reason people invest in
things.

What's the pay back time on a new car or a new kitchen ?

No idea in your circumstances, but it is less well defined than solar

Yes - but my point is that for people to make a purchase, it need not
be defined at all !


Solar panels have a reasonably well spec'd return

Agreed, but some people buy them for other reasons.


I don't see what my folks signed for as being economically viable

No, but I think our clients divide into at least four categories.

People that want to save the world.

People that like interesting toys.

People that want to set an educational example.

People that want to save money.


All three seem worthy in one respect or another. Another category may
also creep in.

People that follow fashion.


Still - I suppose their CO2 is as bad as anybody elses, and every
little helps !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:30:21 -0000, "Curious"
wrote:

Good. They should look at all renewables.

Was this solar PV, or solar HWS systems, OOI ?

Watchdog 'did' the solar energy industry on BBC 1 last Tuesday evening.
Their conclusions were that there a lot of rogue companies, the estimates
for equipment and installation are very inflated (£12,000 in one case for a
non-working system), the claimed energy benefits are often very exaggerated,
the salesmen talk a lot of dishonest rubbish, and a lot of properties are
not suitable. My understanding is that the panels need to be mounted on a
south-facing aspect. Got a long bargepole?

On 16 Nov 2006 12:09:52 -0800, "Will" wrote:

We moved into our two storey, reconstituted stone-built, pitched-roof
house in April.

We decided early on to get as much of our energy as possible from
renewables.

A couple of weeks ago we signed up for a solar heating system. I've
looked at a few and this seems like a very good system.

The marketing wonk who visited us (who had obviously been in the pub
first) declared that our directly west-facing roof would be perfectly
adequate to site the panels. It is a very clear prospect as it faces a
flat field, and there are no trees in the line of sight.

However, when their surveyor came to measure up he said that the
west-facing roof was inadequate and the panels would have to be sited
on the gable-end wall (facing south).

I can't see how this would be an improvement. Even though the panels
would be angled away from the wall (mimicing the roof's pitch) they
would certainly be obscured by the angle of the roof for at least part
of the morning and part of the evening.

Am I wrong? The alternative, according to the surveyor, would be double
the number of panels with half on the east pitch and the other on the
west.

Many thanks

Will.

Its a little difficult to visualise the gable end of the roof, but it
sounds at though your roof ridge runs north/south, which is really as
bad as it gets for placing solar panels (presumably water heating, not
space heating?).
Technically your surveyor is right - in the northern hemisphere they
should face south at approximately the angle of your latitude.
I don't understand, from your description, how they can "mimic" the
roof pitch, unless there is a small angled roof facing south - in
which case that is where the panel should be placed.
In practice you may need to make a compromise if your roof has wrong
angles. But remember its an expensive installation, so you want to
capture the greatest amount of solar insolation possible.

Of course, if the panels were for space heating, you might want the
greatest input in the morning, in which case the east facing roof
might be better. There are a number of factors to consider.

Best wishes
Eric Sears.

Eric Sears

"Eric Sears" wrote in message
...

Technically your surveyor is right - in the northern hemisphere they
should face south at approximately the angle of your latitude.

Correct, and a little shade in the early morning and late evening is neither
here nor there as there's little heat in the sun's rays at those times. Look
at graphs for solar energy vs time of day, and vs orientation, angle, etc.

I don't understand, from your description, how they can "mimic" the
roof pitch, unless there is a small angled roof facing south - in
which case that is where the panel should be placed.

He just means that they'll be mounted at an angle rather than vertically.


Of course, if the panels were for space heating, you might want the
greatest input in the morning, in which case the east facing roof
might be better. There are a number of factors to consider.

Solar panels for space heating! How daft is that! Who needs heating
April-September? If you do, it'll be because the sun isn't shining... These
things provide some heat at other times, but not enough to get your cylinder
hot let alone heat the house! Super-insulated eco-houses excepted, of
course.

Mark

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:11:51 -0000, "MarkK"
wrote:

"Eric Sears" wrote in message
...

Technically your surveyor is right - in the northern hemisphere they
should face south at approximately the angle of your latitude.

Correct, and a little shade in the early morning and late evening is neither
here nor there as there's little heat in the sun's rays at those times. Look
at graphs for solar energy vs time of day, and vs orientation, angle, etc.

I don't understand, from your description, how they can "mimic" the
roof pitch, unless there is a small angled roof facing south - in
which case that is where the panel should be placed.

He just means that they'll be mounted at an angle rather than vertically.


Of course, if the panels were for space heating, you might want the
greatest input in the morning, in which case the east facing roof
might be better. There are a number of factors to consider.

Solar panels for space heating! How daft is that! Who needs heating
April-September? If you do, it'll be because the sun isn't shining... These
things provide some heat at other times, but not enough to get your cylinder
hot let alone heat the house! Super-insulated eco-houses excepted, of
course.

http://www.sunwarm.com/
These sent us a leaflet
Thats for new build only I think but they do a retro fit solution too.
I'm not entirely convinced but I do know the south side of my house in
winter during the day is very toasty but the north side isn't.



Mark

MarkK wrote:

Solar panels for space heating! How daft is that! Who needs heating
April-September? If you do, it'll be because the sun isn't shining... These
things provide some heat at other times, but not enough to get your cylinder
hot let alone heat the house! Super-insulated eco-houses excepted, of
course.

Mark

http://www.builditsolar.com/
&
http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects...ce_Heating.htm


NT

Solar thermal panels for space heating is one of the ways we can
save lots of fossil fuels in the future.

"MarkK" wrote in message ...
"Eric Sears" wrote in message
...

Technically your surveyor is right - in the northern hemisphere they
should face south at approximately the angle of your latitude.

Correct, and a little shade in the early morning and late evening is neither
here nor there as there's little heat in the sun's rays at those times. Look
at graphs for solar energy vs time of day, and vs orientation, angle, etc.

I don't understand, from your description, how they can "mimic" the
roof pitch, unless there is a small angled roof facing south - in
which case that is where the panel should be placed.

He just means that they'll be mounted at an angle rather than vertically.


Of course, if the panels were for space heating, you might want the
greatest input in the morning, in which case the east facing roof
might be better. There are a number of factors to consider.

Solar panels for space heating! How daft is that! Who needs heating
April-September? If you do, it'll be because the sun isn't shining... These
things provide some heat at other times, but not enough to get your cylinder
hot let alone heat the house! Super-insulated eco-houses excepted, of
course.

Mark

In message ppk7h.30$JQ.26@trnddc06, SJC writes
Solar thermal panels for space heating is one of the ways we can
save lots of fossil fuels in the future.

Sorry, this is UK.d-i-y, not alt.bad jokes

as practical, as they say, as a chocolate teapot

where are you going to get meaningful heat from at 7am ?

the best source, I would suggest, would be the hot air emanating from
the sales rep

--
geoff

You seem to be so sure of yourself, but you are so wrong.
Look up fluid source heat pumps with solar...get a clue.

"raden" wrote in message ...
In message ppk7h.30$JQ.26@trnddc06, SJC writes
Solar thermal panels for space heating is one of the ways we can
save lots of fossil fuels in the future.

Sorry, this is UK.d-i-y, not alt.bad jokes

as practical, as they say, as a chocolate teapot

where are you going to get meaningful heat from at 7am ?

the best source, I would suggest, would be the hot air emanating from
the sales rep

--
geoff

raden wrote:
In message ppk7h.30$JQ.26@trnddc06, SJC writes

Solar thermal panels for space heating is one of the ways we can
save lots of fossil fuels in the future.

Sorry, this is UK.d-i-y, not alt.bad jokes

as practical, as they say, as a chocolate teapot

where are you going to get meaningful heat from at 7am ?

from the gas CH system. Why do you think a solar system would have to
output heat 24 hrs a day to save fuel?


NT

In message ppk7h.30$JQ.26@trnddc06, SJC writes

Solar thermal panels for space heating is one of the ways we can
save lots of fossil fuels in the future.

I really doubt it !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

John Beardmore wrote:
In message ppk7h.30$JQ.26@trnddc06, SJC writes

Solar thermal panels for space heating is one of the ways we can
save lots of fossil fuels in the future.

I really doubt it !


Cheers, J/.

Whys that?

http://www.builditsolar.com/
&
http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects...ce_Heating.htm


NT

In message , Eric Sears
writes
Of course, if the panels were for space heating, you might want the
greatest input in the morning, in which case the east facing roof
might be better. There are a number of factors to consider.

Like ...

what time the sun rises in winter, how big a thermal store you would
need to store sufficient heat overnight

it's just not very realistic for heating

--
geoff

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:12:22 GMT, raden wrote:

Well, having done a few quick calcs, I tend to agree, unless you had a
HUGE heating panel to get it active the next morning.

However, I would be interested in your calcs and figures, as you seem
to feel strongly about this G

Like ...

what time the sun rises in winter, how big a thermal store you would
need to store sufficient heat overnight

it's just not very realistic for heating

On Sat, OldNick wrote:

Well, having done a few quick calcs, I tend to agree, unless you had a
HUGE heating panel to get it active the next morning.

If solar heat is wanted at 0700 in a certain room,
an east facing window wall might be better than any
panels. There is nothing lower cost than ordinary
window glass.
My only kitchen outside wall faces SSW, and
in the afternoon the window makes almost heat as
a 1000 watt baseboard heater, and the window is
a little over a square meter.

With fuel prices apparently retaining the
high prices, there could be a huge market for
things like solar air heaters for inside windows,
just a decorative black pattern or simple venetian
blinds black on one side and white on the other.

Many heating panels and heaters are hyped
as radiant heat feels warmer even if the air is not
as warm, and the same goes for sunshine, except
sunshine is free (when it shines), and it can heat
the air just as well as the electric panels.

A window can provide about 5 times the
energy as PV panels of the same area, and that
is a lot, and it also makes PV seem not all that
expensive considering what electricity can do,
it is cheap grid power that makes PV seem
expensive.

Joe Fischer

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:46:10 -0500 Joe Fischer wrote :
With fuel prices apparently retaining the
high prices, there could be a huge market for
things like solar air heaters for inside windows,
just a decorative black pattern or simple venetian
blinds black on one side and white on the other.

We already have this: it's called low-E glass - Kappafloat is one
trade name. A microscopic coating on the inside of the outer pane
of a DG unit reflects heat back into to room instead of letting it
escape. Over the heating season, a high-spec window on a south
elevation will let in more heat than it lets out.

www.bfrc.org has more for anyone interested.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:09:03 +0800, OldNick
wrote:

Actually I am not sure I _do_ agree. Still interested in your basis.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:12:22 GMT, raden wrote:

Well, having done a few quick calcs, I tend to agree, unless you had a
HUGE heating panel to get it active the next morning.

However, I would be interested in your calcs and figures, as you seem
to feel strongly about this G

Like ...

what time the sun rises in winter, how big a thermal store you would
need to store sufficient heat overnight

it's just not very realistic for heating

In message , OldNick
writes
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:09:03 +0800, OldNick
wrote:

Actually I am not sure I _do_ agree. Still interested in your basis.

Nick - the fact that you live upside down doesn't mean that you have to
top post

it's just a sign of being mentally retarded - err .. like a septic



On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:12:22 GMT, raden wrote:

Well, having done a few quick calcs, I tend to agree, unless you had a
HUGE heating panel to get it active the next morning.

However, I would be interested in your calcs and figures, as you seem
to feel strongly about this G

Like ...

what time the sun rises in winter, how big a thermal store you would
need to store sufficient heat overnight

it's just not very realistic for heating


--
geoff

In message , OldNick
writes
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:12:22 GMT, raden wrote:

Well, having done a few quick calcs, I tend to agree, unless you had a
HUGE heating panel to get it active the next morning.

However, I would be interested in your calcs and figures, as you seem
to feel strongly about this G

(Look ... a contextual reply - the post has a chance to flow)

I have just had a run in with a company who ripped off my parents.
Having just done a "fag packet" response, they freely admitted that
solar central heating is a non starter for the reasons I stated below
(which, if you hadn't top posted would have been in the correct place to
quote)

I haven't done any detailed calcs, but they obviously have


Like ...

what time the sun rises in winter, how big a thermal store you would
need to store sufficient heat overnight

it's just not very realistic for heating


--
geoff

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 01:12:45 GMT, raden wrote:

So stop arguing about this **** and stay with your topic. I post as I
see fit, and try to make it reasonable.

Bottom posting when someone leaves the whole bloody thread on top is
in my mind the worst crime. If I have done it I don't remember.

Otherwise, unless I get sniped at I live and let live.

OK?
(which, if you hadn't top posted would have been in the correct place to
quote)

raden wrote:

(Look ... a contextual reply - the post has a chance to flow)

I have just had a run in with a company who ripped off my parents.
Having just done a "fag packet" response, they freely admitted that
solar central heating is a non starter for the reasons I stated below
(which, if you hadn't top posted would have been in the correct place to
quote)

I haven't done any detailed calcs, but they obviously have

Correction, they admitted that their completely unsuitable designed
system was a nonstarter for CH - that I would 100% agree with.


NT

In uk.d-i-y raden wrote:
In message , Eric Sears
writes
Of course, if the panels were for space heating, you might want the
greatest input in the morning, in which case the east facing roof
might be better. There are a number of factors to consider.

Like ...

what time the sun rises in winter, how big a thermal store you would
need to store sufficient heat overnight

it's just not very realistic for heating

Well...

I think the usual assumption is that the building will have significant
thermal mass internally, in the form of an insulated concrete slab, or
something.

In message , Ian
Stirling writes
In uk.d-i-y raden wrote:
In message , Eric Sears
writes
Of course, if the panels were for space heating, you might want the
greatest input in the morning, in which case the east facing roof
might be better. There are a number of factors to consider.

Like ...

what time the sun rises in winter, how big a thermal store you would
need to store sufficient heat overnight

it's just not very realistic for heating

Well...

I think the usual assumption is that the building will have significant
thermal mass internally, in the form of an insulated concrete slab, or
something.

Possibly not very comforting at 7 am in the morning in december

--
geoff

In message , Ian
Stirling writes
In uk.d-i-y raden wrote:
In message , Eric Sears
writes

I think the usual assumption is that the building will have significant
thermal mass internally, in the form of an insulated concrete slab, or
something.



That's not a standard feature of the solar water heating systems we
install. You are getting into the realm of the Hockerton Housing
Project design strategy here, but this has been criticised because of
the environmental impact if making the concrete. Ultra low thermal
capacity buildings also have something to commend them as long as they
can dump heat when required.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In uk.d-i-y John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Ian
Stirling writes
In uk.d-i-y raden wrote:
In message , Eric Sears
writes

I think the usual assumption is that the building will have significant
thermal mass internally, in the form of an insulated concrete slab, or
something.



That's not a standard feature of the solar water heating systems we
install. You are getting into the realm of the Hockerton Housing
Project design strategy here, but this has been criticised because of
the environmental impact if making the concrete. Ultra low thermal
capacity buildings also have something to commend them as long as they
can dump heat when required.

I'm not convinced it has no place - you would admittedly need a very
large additional thermal mass - a ton or two of water probably, to keep
the heating on overnight, with a 10-20C drop.

This is not of itself very expensive, though the places it can be easily
installed are of course going to be very limited.

raden wrote:
In message , Eric Sears
writes

Of course, if the panels were for space heating, you might want the
greatest input in the morning, in which case the east facing roof
might be better. There are a number of factors to consider.

Like ...

what time the sun rises in winter, how big a thermal store you would
need to store sufficient heat overnight

it's just not very realistic for heating

A typical brick or block house should be big enough, assuming its
decently insulated. Mine doesnt lose a whole lot of temp overnight. One
simply sets the solar heating stat to above the temp of the gas CH,
make use of that comfort zone.


NT

On 17 Nov 2006 wrote:

A typical brick or block house should be big enough, assuming its
decently insulated. Mine doesnt lose a whole lot of temp overnight. One
simply sets the solar heating stat to above the temp of the gas CH,
make use of that comfort zone.
NT

A house built for solar heat, or any type of efficient
heating, should have a triple wall construction, in contrast
to present common designs, a well insulated outer wall,
a thick masonry wall (concrete block), and either face brick
on the inside, or furring strips and plaster (drywall).
There are many concrete block houses, but almost
all have the block on the outside.

This is as bad as all the industrial buildings having
north facing windows.

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer wrote:
A house built for solar heat, or any type of efficient
heating, should have a triple wall construction, in contrast
to present common designs, a well insulated outer wall,
a thick masonry wall (concrete block), and either face brick
on the inside, or furring strips and plaster (drywall).
There are many concrete block houses, but almost
all have the block on the outside.

Perhaps because the block is much more durable and resistant to
the weather than insulation. Myself, I would have to run the numbers
but I have a feeling that if you have a well (even super) insulated
house then the typical contents of that house, drywall, furniture,
collections of brick a brack, would have more than enough thermal
mass to do the job.

This is as bad as all the industrial buildings having
north facing windows.

There is a good reason for this. South facing windows would have
direct sunlight shining in and this would be much too intense
and uneven for work. North facing windows, if there are enough
of them, provide more than enough diffuse light without 'hot spots'.

Anthony

Joe Fischer wrote:
On 17 Nov 2006 wrote:

A typical brick or block house should be big enough, assuming its
decently insulated. Mine doesnt lose a whole lot of temp overnight. One
simply sets the solar heating stat to above the temp of the gas CH,
make use of that comfort zone.
NT

A house built for solar heat, or any type of efficient
heating, should have a triple wall construction, in contrast
to present common designs, a well insulated outer wall,
a thick masonry wall (concrete block), and either face brick
on the inside, or furring strips and plaster (drywall).
There are many concrete block houses, but almost
all have the block on the outside.

This is as bad as all the industrial buildings having
north facing windows.

Joe Fischer

It would be a lot more material efficient to have 2 wall leafs than 3,
with the inner being thicker than the outer, eg 2.5" outer leaf, 1"
uninsulated cavity, 6" insulated cavity then 6" inner leaf. SS wall
ties would give the 2.5" leaf good stability.

Triplewall construction only gives a 2nd cavity, and this can be
achieved at far lower cost in other ways.


NT

We moved into our two storey, reconstituted stone-built, pitched-roof
house in April.

We decided early on to get as much of our energy as possible from
renewables.

A couple of weeks ago we signed up for a solar heating system. I've
looked at a few and this seems like a very good system.

The marketing wonk who visited us (who had obviously been in the pub
first) declared that our directly west-facing roof would be perfectly
adequate to site the panels. It is a very clear prospect as it faces
a flat field, and there are no trees in the line of sight.

However, when their surveyor came to measure up he said that the
west-facing roof was inadequate and the panels would have to be sited
on the gable-end wall (facing south).

I can't see how this would be an improvement. Even though the panels
would be angled away from the wall (mimicing the roof's pitch) they
would certainly be obscured by the angle of the roof for at least part
of the morning and part of the evening.

Am I wrong? The alternative, according to the surveyor, would be
double the number of panels with half on the east pitch and the other
on the west.

Have you checked with the local planners that you don't need their
permission? Quite a lot of people get caught out with this.

Peter Crosland

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
However, when their surveyor came to measure up he said that the
west-facing roof was inadequate and the panels would have to be sited
on the gable-end wall (facing south).

Have you checked with the local planners that you don't need their
permission? Quite a lot of people get caught out with this.

Good point. You can normally fit panels to the roof without PP if they don't
protrude more than about 100mm, but sticking them on a gable end at an angle
probably will require PP.

To be safe it's best to get a letter from the local planning dept even if no
PP is required, to help speed the inevitable solicitor's queries when the
time comes to sell. I did for mine, in fact I delayed placing my order until
it was in my hands.

Mark

In message , MarkK
writes
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
However, when their surveyor came to measure up he said that the
west-facing roof was inadequate and the panels would have to be sited
on the gable-end wall (facing south).

Have you checked with the local planners that you don't need their
permission? Quite a lot of people get caught out with this.

Good point. You can normally fit panels to the roof without PP if they don't
protrude more than about 100mm,

I thought it was 80mm, (even in national parks ?), as long as you aren't
in a conservation area or on a listed building ?


but sticking them on a gable end at an angle
probably will require PP.

Yes - and the planners I've asked really hate it !


To be safe it's best to get a letter from the local planning dept even if no
PP is required, to help speed the inevitable solicitor's queries when the
time comes to sell. I did for mine, in fact I delayed placing my order until
it was in my hands.

Hmmm... I've never heard of such queries, but no doubt it's the kind of
thing solicitors live for...


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

"Will" wrote in message
oups.com...
We moved into our two storey, reconstituted stone-built, pitched-roof
house in April.

We decided early on to get as much of our energy as possible from
renewables.

A couple of weeks ago we signed up for a solar heating system. I've
looked at a few and this seems like a very good system.

The marketing wonk who visited us (who had obviously been in the pub
first) declared that our directly west-facing roof would be perfectly
adequate to site the panels. It is a very clear prospect as it faces a
flat field, and there are no trees in the line of sight.

However, when their surveyor came to measure up he said that the
west-facing roof was inadequate and the panels would have to be sited
on the gable-end wall (facing south).

From our experience with our very good south-facing solar panel I'd say that
the surveyor was right. The sun's rays will only be falling on a west-facing
panel for part of the day and in winter they'll be too low to be effective.

I can't see how this would be an improvement. Even though the panels
would be angled away from the wall (mimicing the roof's pitch) they
would certainly be obscured by the angle of the roof for at least part
of the morning and part of the evening.

Am I wrong? The alternative, according to the surveyor, would be double
the number of panels with half on the east pitch and the other on the
west.

That would make it very expensive.

We only looked into the system because we had a directly south facing
pitched roof, if we'd not had that we wouldn't have considered it.

I don't know what your system is but suspect it can't be the same as ours,
our company was very straight with us. In fact, because we did the work
ourselves, nobody visited, they didn't need to.

Mary

Many thanks

Will.

In message , Mary Fisher
writes
"Will" wrote in message
roups.com...

The alternative, according to the surveyor, would be double
the number of panels with half on the east pitch and the other on the
west.

That would make it very expensive.

Yes, but not double the price. Maybe about a third more ?


We only looked into the system because we had a directly south facing
pitched roof, if we'd not had that we wouldn't have considered it.

It's not without advantages. It does mean you can get more power
earlier and later in the day, and more or less as much in the middle.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Mary Fisher
writes
"Will" wrote in message
roups.com...

We moved into our two storey, reconstituted stone-built, pitched-roof
house in April.

We decided early on to get as much of our energy as possible from
renewables.

A couple of weeks ago we signed up for a solar heating system. I've
looked at a few and this seems like a very good system.

The marketing wonk who visited us (who had obviously been in the pub
first) declared that our directly west-facing roof would be perfectly
adequate to site the panels. It is a very clear prospect as it faces a
flat field, and there are no trees in the line of sight.

However, when their surveyor came to measure up he said that the
west-facing roof was inadequate and the panels would have to be sited
on the gable-end wall (facing south).

From our experience with our very good south-facing solar panel I'd say that
the surveyor was right. The sun's rays will only be falling on a west-facing
panel for part of the day and in winter they'll be too low to be effective.

Yes. Facing due west won't be great, but keep in mind that if you
capture heat towards the evening, it won't have to be stored long before
a typical family will use it.

We once inspected a system, and data logged a collector that faces 45
degrees west of south in summer.

To quote our report, "the temperature of the pipe from the solar panel
shows a rise of about 5.25°C per hour on the 25th, starting at around
9:00 and continuing until around 19:00".

(The 25th was one of the few sunny days !)


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore