I guess that this is off topic but I suspect that I will find some experts
here.

My sister has had a man around to quote for this and I've been tasked with
checking out if what she was told makes sense.

She has a bungalow with a shallow sloped roof and the quote was to install
14 panels on an Easterly facing roof because the Southerly facing one is
shaded by a tree. So the figures a

Expected output 2928 kWh per year.

Returning 41.3 feed in tariff plus a saving on her electric bill of 50% of
the output at say 12p and the other 50% output gains 3p from the electric
company.

The prices a

a) A "leasing" scheme whereby the householder pays an "installation" fee of
2610.00 and receives the "free electricity plus the "3p" but the company
receive all of the 41.3 feed in tariff.

b) Outright purchase costing 18237.00 whereby the householder keeps all of
the returns.

I calculate that (a) returns around 220 pounds (8.4%) and (b) returns 1430
pounds (7.8%).

So the question is, are these figures actually achievable and is the cost
price competitive?

Does anybody know?

tim

tim.... wrote:
I guess that this is off topic but I suspect that I will find some experts
here.

My sister has had a man around to quote for this and I've been tasked with
checking out if what she was told makes sense.

She has a bungalow with a shallow sloped roof and the quote was to install
14 panels on an Easterly facing roof because the Southerly facing one is
shaded by a tree. So the figures a

Expected output 2928 kWh per year.

Returning 41.3 feed in tariff plus a saving on her electric bill of 50% of
the output at say 12p and the other 50% output gains 3p from the electric
company.

The prices a

a) A "leasing" scheme whereby the householder pays an "installation" fee of
2610.00 and receives the "free electricity plus the "3p" but the company
receive all of the 41.3 feed in tariff.

b) Outright purchase costing 18237.00 whereby the householder keeps all of
the returns.

I calculate that (a) returns around 220 pounds (8.4%) and (b) returns 1430
pounds (7.8%).

So the question is, are these figures actually achievable and is the cost
price competitive?


also ask yourself how long the output will stay at those levels with
dust, bird****, and general wear and tear.


And how long the government will tolerate buying micro amounts of
electricity at 20 times the bulk price from a nuclear set.



Does anybody know?

tim

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
tim.... wrote:
I guess that this is off topic but I suspect that I will find some
experts here.

My sister has had a man around to quote for this and I've been tasked
with checking out if what she was told makes sense.

She has a bungalow with a shallow sloped roof and the quote was to
install 14 panels on an Easterly facing roof because the Southerly facing
one is shaded by a tree. So the figures a

Expected output 2928 kWh per year.

Returning 41.3 feed in tariff plus a saving on her electric bill of 50%
of the output at say 12p and the other 50% output gains 3p from the
electric company.

The prices a

a) A "leasing" scheme whereby the householder pays an "installation" fee
of 2610.00 and receives the "free electricity plus the "3p" but the
company receive all of the 41.3 feed in tariff.

b) Outright purchase costing 18237.00 whereby the householder keeps all
of the returns.

I calculate that (a) returns around 220 pounds (8.4%) and (b) returns
1430 pounds (7.8%).

So the question is, are these figures actually achievable and is the cost
price competitive?


also ask yourself how long the output will stay at those levels with dust,
bird****, and general wear and tear.

They need cleaning once per year. I don't think that there's any "wear".



And how long the government will tolerate buying micro amounts of
electricity at 20 times the bulk price from a nuclear set.

They "promised" 25 years, but this is a risk!

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "tim...."
saying something like:

also ask yourself how long the output will stay at those levels with dust,
bird****, and general wear and tear.

They need cleaning once per year. I don't think that there's any "wear".

Output falls from day one. Ten-year-old PV panels can be producing half
of what they were when new, but it depends on the solar tech involved.
As always, the technology is steadily improving, but I really don't know
if it's worth it yet.
Fine, if you live in an off-grid cabin in the woods, but otherwise,
probably not.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And how long the government will tolerate buying micro amounts of
electricity at 20 times the bulk price from a nuclear set.

This particular subsidy doesn't count in the government spending because it
is funded but those people that buy fossil fueled electricity isn't it?

AJH

On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 21:23:55 +0100, tim.... wrote:
I guess that this is off topic but I suspect that I will find some experts
here.

My sister has had a man around to quote for this and I've been tasked with
checking out if what she was told makes sense.

She has a bungalow with a shallow sloped roof and the quote was to install
14 panels on an Easterly facing roof because the Southerly facing one is
shaded by a tree. So the figures a

Expected output 2928 kWh per year.

Returning 41.3 feed in tariff plus a saving on her electric bill of 50% of
the output at say 12p and the other 50% output gains 3p from the electric
company.

The prices a

a) A "leasing" scheme whereby the householder pays an "installation" fee of
2610.00 and receives the "free electricity plus the "3p" but the company
receive all of the 41.3 feed in tariff.

b) Outright purchase costing 18237.00 whereby the householder keeps all of
the returns.

I calculate that (a) returns around 220 pounds (8.4%) and (b) returns 1430
pounds (7.8%).

So the question is, are these figures actually achievable and is the cost
price competitive?

Does anybody know?

tim

How much extra would be gained by chopping the tree down?
i.e. how much is that tree worth.

So far as calculating the returns, did you take into account
the "lost" income from having the difference - £15,600 in the
bank earning interest?
Even at 3%, that's nearly another £500 / year.

My inclination would be to let the supplier take the risk
of not meeting the expected output, or of a future govt.
reducing / removing the subsidy (as happened in Spain
recently).

In message , pete
wrote

How much extra would be gained by chopping the tree down?
i.e. how much is that tree worth.

So far as calculating the returns, did you take into account
the "lost" income from having the difference - £15,600 in the
bank earning interest?
Even at 3%, that's nearly another £500 / year.

My inclination would be to let the supplier take the risk
of not meeting the expected output, or of a future govt.
reducing / removing the subsidy (as happened in Spain
recently).


And any money "made" by selling the electricity back would be classed as
taxable income.
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , pete
wrote

How much extra would be gained by chopping the tree down?
i.e. how much is that tree worth.

So far as calculating the returns, did you take into account
the "lost" income from having the difference - £15,600 in the
bank earning interest?
Even at 3%, that's nearly another £500 / year.

My inclination would be to let the supplier take the risk
of not meeting the expected output, or of a future govt.
reducing / removing the subsidy (as happened in Spain
recently).


And any money "made" by selling the electricity back would be classed as
taxable income.

Is it?

(I really don't know, but it would seem to be too complicated if it were
because you'd be allowed to deducts all the costs first)

"pete" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 21:23:55 +0100, tim.... wrote:
I guess that this is off topic but I suspect that I will find some
experts
here.

My sister has had a man around to quote for this and I've been tasked
with
checking out if what she was told makes sense.

She has a bungalow with a shallow sloped roof and the quote was to
install
14 panels on an Easterly facing roof because the Southerly facing one is
shaded by a tree. So the figures a

Expected output 2928 kWh per year.

Returning 41.3 feed in tariff plus a saving on her electric bill of 50%
of
the output at say 12p and the other 50% output gains 3p from the electric
company.

The prices a

a) A "leasing" scheme whereby the householder pays an "installation" fee
of
2610.00 and receives the "free electricity plus the "3p" but the company
receive all of the 41.3 feed in tariff.

b) Outright purchase costing 18237.00 whereby the householder keeps all
of
the returns.

I calculate that (a) returns around 220 pounds (8.4%) and (b) returns
1430
pounds (7.8%).

So the question is, are these figures actually achievable and is the cost
price competitive?

Does anybody know?

tim

How much extra would be gained by chopping the tree down?
i.e. how much is that tree worth.

It's not her tree!

So far as calculating the returns, did you take into account
the "lost" income from having the difference - £15,600 in the
bank earning interest?
Even at 3%, that's nearly another £500 / year.

Obviously one looks at this in totally. That's 6-7% instead of 2-3 %

My inclination would be to let the supplier take the risk
of not meeting the expected output, or of a future govt.
reducing / removing the subsidy (as happened in Spain
recently).

On 1 July, 21:23, "tim...." wrote:
I guess that this is off topic but I suspect that I will find some experts
here.

My sister has had a man around to quote for this and I've been tasked with
checking out if what she was told makes sense.

She has a bungalow with a shallow sloped roof and the quote was to install
14 panels on an Easterly facing roof because the Southerly facing one is
shaded by a tree. *So the figures a

Expected output 2928 kWh per year.

Returning 41.3 feed in tariff plus a saving on her electric bill of 50% of
the output at say 12p and the other 50% output gains 3p from the electric
company.

The prices a

a) A "leasing" scheme whereby the householder pays an "installation" fee of
2610.00 and receives the "free electricity plus the "3p" but the company
receive all of the 41.3 feed in tariff.

b) Outright purchase costing 18237.00 whereby the householder keeps all of
the returns.

I calculate that (a) returns around 220 pounds (8.4%) and (b) returns 1430
pounds (7.8%).

So the question is, are these figures actually achievable and is the cost
price competitive?

Does anybody know?

tim

Ask on what basis they arrive at the expected output. I think you will
find its a back of an envelope calculation based on theoretical
maximums which are never achieved in reality.
Not using a South facing aspect is going to approximately halve the
available energy so either the tree goes or forget it in my opinion

tim.... wrote:
I guess that this is off topic but I suspect that I will find some
experts here.

My sister has had a man around to quote for this and I've been tasked
with checking out if what she was told makes sense.

She has a bungalow with a shallow sloped roof and the quote was to
install 14 panels on an Easterly facing roof because the Southerly
facing one is shaded by a tree. So the figures a

Expected output 2928 kWh per year.

Returning 41.3 feed in tariff plus a saving on her electric bill of
50% of the output at say 12p and the other 50% output gains 3p from
the electric company.

The prices a

a) A "leasing" scheme whereby the householder pays an "installation"
fee of 2610.00 and receives the "free electricity plus the "3p" but
the company receive all of the 41.3 feed in tariff.

b) Outright purchase costing 18237.00 whereby the householder keeps
all of the returns.

I calculate that (a) returns around 220 pounds (8.4%) and (b) returns
1430 pounds (7.8%).

So the question is, are these figures actually achievable and is the
cost price competitive?

Does anybody know?

I agree with all the other posters to date. From what you describe, keep the
money in the bank earning interest which will be greater than the income and
still be an asset.

tim.... wrote:

Expected output 2928 kWh per year.


Expected on what basis? (tell us the panel area, roof slope and approx.
location (nearest city) and someone will be able to check the numbers)

What's the cost of capital? (lost interest)

If she has a mortgage the interest rate on the capital is of course the
mortgage rate. IMHO this will soon rise and she may prefer to pay off
the mortgage and know where she is, rather than effectively borrow money
to buy the panels.

Andy

tim.... wrote:

My sister has had a man around to quote for this and I've been tasked with
checking out if what she was told makes sense.

She has a bungalow with a shallow sloped roof and the quote was to install
14 panels on an Easterly facing roof because the Southerly facing one is
shaded by a tree. So the figures a

Expected output 2928 kWh per year.

b) Outright purchase costing 18237.00 whereby the householder keeps all of
the returns.

The panels are rated at 230 Wp (whatever the p is) and I assume that's per
hour.
P is for peak, so this figure is the peak output. Time is
irrelevant.

230 W* 14 * 24 * 365 is 23000 kWh per year. (of course that includes night
time!).

I assumed that the supplier took the orientation of the roof into account.
It is quite a shallow slope it will still get the sun for most of the day,

I strongly suggest that, if she is serious, she gets a number of
quotations. You will get wildly different offers.

AIUI, the performance figures are produced in line with
officially laid down calculations. The quotes I have had, for a
SSE facing roof, are all pretty close to a ratio of yearly output
kWh = 0.8 x peak installed power. In your case this figure is
3.22/2.928 = 0.909 I don't believe it for an east facing roof.

As to the overall cost, your figure gives £5663 per kWp
installed. Again this is at the expensive end of the scale, and I
have had a number of offers below £4000 per kWp.

A lot depends upon the panel manufacturer, the (very) small print
of their performance guarantee, which you will find to be far
less generous than it first seems, and how likely you think it is
that they would still be trading if you came to claim against
them in 20 years.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

tim.... wrote:

Expected output 2928 kWh per year.

And the company is demanding close to £20,000 for the installation? The
panels required (14 x 210W) retail for £4,200. The grid tie inverter
required for the feed-in costs £1000, retail.

So the company are charging somewhere around £14,000 for installation.

That's a rip off of impressive magnitude IMO. If they got that down to
£5K, with an installed price of £10-£11K it would be worth it.

It would certainly be better to DIY.

Steve Firth wrote:

It would certainly be better to DIY.

Only if you are not interested in being paid the Feed-in tariff.
To be eligible, you have to use both approved components and
approved installers.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Steve Firth wrote:

It would certainly be better to DIY.

Only if you are not interested in being paid the Feed-in tariff.
To be eligible, you have to use both approved components and
approved installers.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK



I really don't know a lot about this subject, other than what I've read in
general, but just to fling a curved ball in for a moment, if the OP's sister
is intent on having panels on a less-than-ideal-facing roof, wouldn't she do
better to make them water-heating panels ? I seem to recall reading that the
energy saved on fuel for heating the same water, is quite significant, and
that the installation costs are not that high. If the fuel saving *is*
significant, then I would have thought that with the very high energy costs
that we suffer now, the 'effective' returns might be quite good, without the
hassle of having to sell energy back via a government scheme of dubious
longevity, and without the inherent progressive efficiency reduction that
comes with PV panels. Anyone here clever enough to do the comparative sums ?
I'd be quite interested to know this for myself.

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:


"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Steve Firth wrote:

It would certainly be better to DIY.

Only if you are not interested in being paid the Feed-in tariff.
To be eligible, you have to use both approved components and
approved installers.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK



I really don't know a lot about this subject, other than what I've read
in general, but just to fling a curved ball in for a moment, if the OP's
sister is intent on having panels on a less-than-ideal-facing roof,
wouldn't she do better to make them water-heating panels ? I seem to
recall reading that the energy saved on fuel for heating the same water,
is quite significant, and that the installation costs are not that high.
If the fuel saving *is* significant, then I would have thought that with
the very high energy costs that we suffer now, the 'effective' returns
might be quite good, without the hassle of having to sell energy back
via a government scheme of dubious longevity, and without the inherent
progressive efficiency reduction that comes with PV panels. Anyone here
clever enough to do the comparative sums ? I'd be quite interested to
know this for myself.

Arfa

My my calculations the exact same applies. I.e. no ROI of any real validity.

F in law did this, and the numbers make no financial sense, and after 6
months the builder next door had covered them in cement dust, they
barely work and there is argument about who is going to pay to have them
cleaned/glass replaced etc etc.

On Jul 2, 9:54*am, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
"Chris J Dixon" wrote in messagenews:5o2r26d8ljra9b75uq8g2khtkdalk4stqk@4ax .com...

Steve Firth wrote:

It would certainly be better to DIY.

Only if you are not interested in being paid the Feed-in tariff.
To be eligible, you have to use both approved components and
approved installers.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon *Nottingham UK


I really don't know a lot about this subject, other than what I've read in
general, but just to fling a curved ball in for a moment, if the OP's sister
is intent on having panels on a less-than-ideal-facing roof, wouldn't she do
better to make them water-heating panels ? I seem to recall reading that the
energy saved on fuel for heating the same water, is quite significant, and
that the installation costs are not that high. If the fuel saving *is*
significant, then I would have thought that with the very high energy costs
that we suffer now, the 'effective' returns might be quite good, without the
hassle of having to sell energy back via a government scheme of dubious
longevity, and without the inherent progressive efficiency reduction that
comes with PV panels. Anyone here clever enough to do the comparative sums ?
I'd be quite interested to know this for myself.

Arfa

Its possible to make solarthermal pay its way and some, but not easy,
and commercial installs, as a rule, don't. Since the op was asking
about basics I cant see a good diy design/instal being likely.

On the upside it would waste a lot less money than PV.


NT

Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
NT wrote:

On Jul 2, 9:54�am, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
"Chris J Dixon" wrote in
messagenews:5o2r26d8ljra9b75uq8g2khtkdalk4stqk@4ax .com...

Steve Firth wrote:

It would certainly be better to DIY.

Only if you are not interested in being paid the Feed-in tariff.
To be eligible, you have to use both approved components and
approved installers.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon �Nottingham UK


I really don't know a lot about this subject, other than what I've
read in
general, but just to fling a curved ball in for a moment, if the
OP's sister
is intent on having panels on a less-than-ideal-facing roof,
wouldn't she do
better to make them water-heating panels ? I seem to recall reading
that the
energy saved on fuel for heating the same water, is quite
significant, and
that the installation costs are not that high. If the fuel saving *is*
significant, then I would have thought that with the very high
energy costs
that we suffer now, the 'effective' returns might be quite good,
without the
hassle of having to sell energy back via a government scheme of dubious
longevity, and without the inherent progressive efficiency reduction
that
comes with PV panels. Anyone here clever enough to do the
comparative sums ?
I'd be quite interested to know this for myself.

Arfa

Its possible to make solarthermal pay its way and some, but not easy,
and commercial installs, as a rule, don't. Since the op was asking
about basics I cant see a good diy design/instal being likely.

On the upside it would waste a lot less money than PV.

I'm told that heat pumps are cost effective - even in lowish outside
temps. A quick google shows Danfoss and Hitachi, at least, make them.
Anyone considered these?

yes.

The calculations are really the ONLY eco fluff things that made sense.

Heatpumps work.

Sadly, not with conventional radiators and hot water tanks by and large.

I was faced with a sort of £15k-20K plus re plumb and rip the garden up
prospect to save a grand a year on heating (maybe).

The the oil price came down.. and I gave up on it.

On 2010-07-02 10:56:41 +0100, Tim Streater said:

In article ,
NT wrote:

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in
messagenews:5o2r26d8ljra9b75uq8g2khtkdalk4stqk@4ax .com...

Steve Firth wrote:

It would certainly be better to DIY.

Only if you are not interested in being paid the Feed-in tariff.
To be eligible, you have to use both approved components and
approved installers.

Chris
--


I really don't know a lot about this subject, other than what I've read in
general, but just to fling a curved ball in for a moment, if the OP's sister
is intent on having panels on a less-than-ideal-facing roof, wouldn't she do
better to make them water-heating panels ? I seem to recall reading that the
energy saved on fuel for heating the same water, is quite significant, and
that the installation costs are not that high. If the fuel saving *is*
significant, then I would have thought that with the very high energy costs
that we suffer now, the 'effective' returns might be quite good, without the
hassle of having to sell energy back via a government scheme of dubious
longevity, and without the inherent progressive efficiency reduction that
comes with PV panels. Anyone here clever enough to do the comparative sums ?
I'd be quite interested to know this for myself.

Arfa

Its possible to make solarthermal pay its way and some, but not easy,
and commercial installs, as a rule, don't. Since the op was asking
about basics I cant see a good diy design/instal being likely.

On the upside it would waste a lot less money than PV.

I'm told that heat pumps are cost effective - even in lowish outside
temps. A quick google shows Danfoss and Hitachi, at least, make them.
Anyone considered these?

Of course, heat pumps depend on large amounts of (grid provided)
electricity. I seem to recall something like 1/4 to 1/3 of the total
overall heat energy produced by a heat pump needs to be provided with
electricity to power it.

Given the state of our generating infrastructure in this country I
would not want to be dependent on relatively cheap (and available!)
electricity for my heating in the medium and long term.

On 1 July, 21:23, "tim...." wrote:
I guess that this is off topic but I suspect that I will find some experts
here.

I keep my expert in a book:
http://www.withouthotair.com/

David MacKay (and if you're a geek, yes it's the same David MacKay)
has written what is by far the best guide to energy policy and
alternative generation approaches. Sums too. It's even there as a free
download. This book is very highly recommended.

My sister has had a man around to quote for this and I've been tasked with
checking out if what she was told makes sense.

Time to break out Excel and do some real modelling of it. For this
money, you can even afford to buy a bottle or two of something for
someone who does understand financial modelling with Excel.

There are broadly four issues he

* Does the tech work, and does it last? Read MacKay, but the stuff is
now pretty good and pretty predictable.

* Does the sun work? Site surveying isn't the black art some make out
and you can make good predictions. Some years will be better than
others, but over a few years' lifecycle, it's good enough. Read MacKay
(and some of his further reading - try ther Navitron website too)

* What price will you get? This cannot be justifiable for "real
cost"(sic) electricity. However the massive porkbarrel of the feed in
tariff does make it close enough that you have to check the numbers to
know which side, you can't simply assume. However what's the political
future of inflated feed-in tariffs? (IMHO it's good - it's so small a
market that the cost to Whitehall is tiny and the press reaction to
cutting it would be bad).

* What does money cost? It's a big capital outlay. However if you're
like many of the bungalow owners I know, there's capital available, no
bank interest to do much else with it, and a wish to create a return
on it.

The rest is numbers and you have to do this with care. However don't
decide something like this (risking a large investment) based on an
estimate, calculate three estimates (mean, worst, best) and do your
real decision making on the worst case assumpitions and your risk
assessment of how likely this is to happen.

There's also the question of getting a second supply installed, as a
source of electricity - because you won't want to use any that you
could have sold for 3x market price instead! However in practice, you
don't use that much domestically when the sun's out, unless you're at
home during the day.

On 01/07/2010 21:23, tim.... wrote:
I guess that this is off topic but I suspect that I will find some experts
here.

My sister has had a man around to quote for this and I've been tasked with
checking out if what she was told makes sense.

She has a bungalow with a shallow sloped roof and the quote was to install
14 panels on an Easterly facing roof because the Southerly facing one is
shaded by a tree. So the figures a

Expected output 2928 kWh per year.

David Mackay makes some realistic estimates of the energy you are likely
to get from solar panels he

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w.../page_38.shtml

According to the link below, good panels are ~20% efficient and cheap
ones about 10%. With the good ones David Mackay estimates an average of
22W per hour per m^2 for a SOUTH facing roof in the UK.

22*24*365 = 192.72 kWh per year per m^2 of panel

2928/192.72 = 15.19 so to get 2928 kWh per year you would need ~15m^2 of
high efficiency panels on a south facing roof.

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w.../page_39.shtml

I don't know how much you would have to reduce that for east facing, but
I imagine it could be a significant difference.

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:29:14 +0100, Gareth wrote:


David Mackay makes some realistic estimates of the energy you are likely
to get from solar panels he

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w.../page_38.shtml

According to the link below, good panels are ~20% efficient and cheap
ones about 10%.

Most cells supplied in the UK are the Chinese made polycrystalline
sort with efficiencies of around 10-15%. These claim to maintain 90%
of initial efficiency for 10 years, dropping to 80% after 20 years.
Whether these panels will last 20 years is unknown. The only people
who have carried out accelerated aging tests are the likes of BP on
well made monocrystaline panels. Given the volume of panels being
made and the poor quality control on much of this type of production
from China it seems unlikely. Many invertors are also (rather
surprisingly) proving to be very unreliable.

One thing is for sure, it is highly unlikely your supplier will be
around in 20 years - "green" companies fitting solar hot water and PV
seem to be keen to practice what they preach on recycling and
regularly go out of business one day to emerge the next under a
slightly different name as a Phoenix company having shed all warranty
liabilities.

Peter Parry wrote:
snipMany invertors are also (rather
surprisingly) proving to be very unreliable./snip


I thought the problem with invertors was that they were unobtainable.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...ar-panels.html

Andy

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 19:46:23 +0100, Andy Champ
wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:
snipMany invertors are also (rather
surprisingly) proving to be very unreliable./snip


I thought the problem with invertors was that they were unobtainable.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...ar-panels.html

The two situations may not be unrelated :-)

"tim...." wrote in message
...
I guess that this is off topic but I suspect that I will find some experts
here.

My sister has had a man around to quote for this and I've been tasked with
checking out if what she was told makes sense.

She has a bungalow with a shallow sloped roof and the quote was to install
14 panels on an Easterly facing roof because the Southerly facing one is
shaded by a tree. So the figures a

Expected output 2928 kWh per year.

Returning 41.3 feed in tariff plus a saving on her electric bill of 50% of
the output at say 12p and the other 50% output gains 3p from the electric
company.

The prices a

a) A "leasing" scheme whereby the householder pays an "installation" fee
of 2610.00 and receives the "free electricity plus the "3p" but the
company receive all of the 41.3 feed in tariff.

b) Outright purchase costing 18237.00 whereby the householder keeps all of
the returns.

I calculate that (a) returns around 220 pounds (8.4%) and (b) returns 1430
pounds (7.8%).

So the question is, are these figures actually achievable and is the cost
price competitive?

Does anybody know?

Thanks guys.

All comments noted and passed on

tim