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?

Is solar power now a reasonable prospect subject to the usual caveats about
unproven long term technology and untrusted long term government policy?

Having a large south facing roof is making me wonder if I should get some
quotes.
Also a couple of friends who are generally financially savvy are going down
this route.

Cheers

Dave R

On Apr 6, 4:49*pm, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:
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?

Is solar power now a reasonable prospect subject to the usual caveats about
unproven long term technology and untrusted long term government policy?

Having a large south facing roof is making me wonder if I should get some
quotes.
Also a couple of friends who are generally financially savvy are going down
this route.

Cheers

Dave R

Solarthemal? Solar PV? You forgot to tell us.


NT

David WE Roberts wrote:
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?


when teh discussion moved from more or les unsubsidised solar water
panels to heavily subsidised solar PV

Is solar power now a reasonable prospect subject to the usual caveats
about unproven long term technology and untrusted long term government
policy?

If you want to to put the green capitalist boot on the neck of the
working class, and profit by it, yes.

Having a large south facing roof is making me wonder if I should get
some quotes.
Also a couple of friends who are generally financially savvy are going
down this route.


Let me have their names for the database of people to be shot first,
come the revolution.

Cheers

Dave R

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:49:40 -0700, David WE Roberts wrote:
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?

Is solar power now a reasonable prospect subject to the usual caveats about
unproven long term technology and untrusted long term government policy?

Having a large south facing roof is making me wonder if I should get some
quotes.
Also a couple of friends who are generally financially savvy are going down
this route.

To toss another factor into the equation ...
While the tech is improving, do you really want to buy now and lumber
yourself with a system that could be much less efficient than something
that comes out in a few years time?

For example, if you spend £12k now and buy a PV system that just about
pays its way provided you amortise the cost over 25 years. What could
you do if a new development makes systems available that would be
lower cost, more efficient and recoup their costs in 10 years?

This is the quandry that early-adopters face in every technology. But
for PV it's a more serious question than buying a PC for a few £00,
only to see a bigger/faster/cheaper system come out a year later.

"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...
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

root wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:49:40 -0700, David WE Roberts wrote:
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?

Is solar power now a reasonable prospect subject to the usual caveats about
unproven long term technology and untrusted long term government policy?

Having a large south facing roof is making me wonder if I should get some
quotes.
Also a couple of friends who are generally financially savvy are going down
this route.

To toss another factor into the equation ...
While the tech is improving, do you really want to buy now and lumber
yourself with a system that could be much less efficient than something
that comes out in a few years time?

For example, if you spend £12k now and buy a PV system that just about
pays its way provided you amortise the cost over 25 years. What could
you do if a new development makes systems available that would be
lower cost, more efficient and recoup their costs in 10 years?

This is the quandry that early-adopters face in every technology. But
for PV it's a more serious question than buying a PC for a few £00,
only to see a bigger/faster/cheaper system come out a year later.

No, the problem is how fast can you install before the government axes
the subsidy and makes PV permanently uneconomic for everybody connected
to the grid.

tim.... wrote:
"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...
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.

No, the sums still don't add up for solar water heating.

They only add up for PV because the electricity from a PV panel is sold
at over ten times what its worth, cost paid by the rest of electricity
consumers.

In fact its sold for more than it costs to generate with a diesel generator.

Which is where a lot of 'solar electricity' actually comes from, allegedly.



The fact that commercial operations think otherwise suggest that the
negative opinions are formed from out of date data.

No, the unbleiveable FITS have been scrapped by DECC. Only domestic
installations will now attract these exorbitant gifts. This has killed
all commercial PV in this country stone dead, if they don't get it in by
IIRC July.


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.


The classic comment was in some blog somewhere where when quizzed by a
someone a minister or green spokesperson allegedly said she supported PV
FITS because it was an immature unproven technology. At some later point
he asks why thorium reactor research was not being given grants 'because
its an unproven immature technology' was the alarming reply..


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


There is no doubt that PV panels at today's tarriffs are extremely
profitable. Payback is in months, not years. So you wont be out of
pocket even if they only last a couple of years.

But that is a symptom of politics, not the technology.

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.

That's a creative conclusion


*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.

30 years in a fairly high tech area is very much immature. Look at
where petrol cars were in 1920, radios in 1940, TVs in 1955, computers
in 1950.

Mature solar pv cells would be low cost enough to be good for
widespread use. There is finally interest in going just this direction
with commercial cells - the big issue isn't electrical efficiency, its
financial efficiency.


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,

The real payback figures are hopeless for PV. Howeevr there are plenty
of issues to conveniently overlook to make it look workable.


but unlike other
home improvements this one lives and dies on its financial benefits as the
other "user" benefits are zero.

The motivation to go PV is usually the idea that its a green
technology.


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

indeed... try finding such a deal.


NT

On Apr 6, 5:30*pm, root wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:49:40 -0700, David WE Roberts wrote:
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?

Is solar power now a reasonable prospect subject to the usual caveats about
unproven long term technology and untrusted long term government policy?

Having a large south facing roof is making me wonder if I should get some
quotes.
Also a couple of friends who are generally financially savvy are going down
this route.

To toss another factor into the equation ...
While the tech is improving, do you really want to buy now and lumber
yourself with a system that could be much less efficient than something
that comes out in a few years time?

For example, if you spend £12k now and buy a PV system that just about
pays its way provided you amortise the cost over 25 years. What could
you do if a new development makes systems available that would be
lower cost, more efficient and recoup their costs in 10 years?

This is the quandry that early-adopters face in every technology. But
for PV it's a more serious question than buying a PC for a few £00,
only to see a bigger/faster/cheaper system come out a year later.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is true of all technology. The price of 41 pence/kwh they pay
you is inflation linked to the RPI. However it seem likely that fuel
cost wil rise faster than RPI & eventually will catch up with the rate
paid.
The subsidy is about kick starting the market. In ten years I don't
belive the subsidy will be relevant.
It's all about politics and oil and gas supplies not about carbon in
my view.
The best efficiency I have seen is just under 20%. It will improve no
doubt.

The money they give is banded, in practice most people won't have
room for more than the lowest band (4Kwp). So you might as well only
go for the more expensive/efficient panel if you have a space
limitation.
I have ample space so I've gone for the cheaper older technolgy ones.

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.

John Rumm wrote:
On 06/04/2011 23:40, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:

On 06/04/2011 21:22, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:

[1] In theory you have a contractual lock on the other party to pay
the price agreed for the duration, however the cynic in me suspects
that the deal is with a subsidiary company of the plc that was setup
for the purpose. If it were to convienently go into liquidation at
some point you may be stuffed.

It will depend on the details of the contract. I see no reason why
someone going in for this should not argue the contract terms with
them.
Like, who gets ownership of the plant if they go into liquidation.

Yup agreed, however I was actually thinking of the cases where you buy
the kit outright on the understanding that you make enough profit if
you get paid 43p/kwh for 25 years. That's a long time in the energy
supply business, and to suddenly find that after 7 years your FIT
payer vanishes, and you are back to saving grid cost per kwa, you
would probably never see a payback.

Ah, righto, I see. But perhaps I haven't understood this: if you buy the
kit outright then why is the grid not paying you direct? Who is paying
the FIT payer? Could you not, in your scenario, set up as your own FIT?
In fact why not do that anyway having bought the kit?

IIUC, when you buy it outright, then you do a deal with your energy
supplier (EDF, EoN etc) to sell them the generated power. The cynic in
me suspects that they have cunning plans hatched to get themselves out
of such deals should they feel the need to in the future.


The tarriffs are not retrospectively alterable. That's part of the whole
scam.

However, should the bloody thing pack up before its paid for itself, the
onus would be on you to get it fixed.

And I wouldn't mind betting that the guvmint might not at some stage
discover a legal loophole in that fitting a new panel to replace a
busted one, was a 'new install' and suddenly wasn't eligible for any FIT
at all.

Cos the FITS wont last very long, if what's happening all over Europe
and the world, is anything to go by

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 20:34:26 +0100, dennis@home wrote:


"root" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:49:40 -0700, David WE Roberts wrote:
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?

Is solar power now a reasonable prospect subject to the usual caveats
about
unproven long term technology and untrusted long term government policy?

Having a large south facing roof is making me wonder if I should get some
quotes.
Also a couple of friends who are generally financially savvy are going
down
this route.

To toss another factor into the equation ...
While the tech is improving, do you really want to buy now and lumber
yourself with a system that could be much less efficient than something
that comes out in a few years time?

For example, if you spend ??12k now and buy a PV system that just about
pays its way provided you amortise the cost over 25 years. What could
you do if a new development makes systems available that would be
lower cost, more efficient and recoup their costs in 10 years?

Efficiency doesn't matter.
You get a return of about 9% for 25 years.

Presuming you stay in the same house for 25 years. What these devices
will do for resale value is unknown. (Esp. if subsidies get axed/reduced
or the terms changed so only _original_ installers get them.) Or if
they (shock!) don't actually live up to all the hype, apropos output
over time, life-expectancy, reliability, next-doors trees shadowing it ...

On 07/04/2011 02:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Cos the FITS wont last very long, if what's happening all over Europe
and the world, is anything to go by


A bloke called Ridley was claiming in The Times the other day that it's
feasible to floodlight the PV array using off-peak electricity and still
turn a profit at 3am!

Can't provide a link, they've started charging for access to their web site.

Another Dave

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
tim.... wrote:
"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...
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.

No, the sums still don't add up for solar water heating.

They only add up for PV because the electricity from a PV panel is sold at
over ten times what its worth, cost paid by the rest of electricity
consumers.

Yes, that was taken as read in the question. There is no need to repeat it
as a factor in the discussion. It is the discussion.

The fact that commercial operations think otherwise suggest that the
negative opinions are formed from out of date data.

No, the unbleiveable FITS have been scrapped by DECC.

That is irrelevant to the point of whether commercial operations consider
the bulk installation of PV profitable or not based upon the full costs of
the equipment. The fact that they do has already been proven by
installations that have already gone ahead.

Only domestic installations will now attract these exorbitant gifts. This
has killed all commercial PV in this country stone dead, if they don't get
it in by IIRC July.

I think that it is only installations on commercial properties that are
stopping.

Commercial installations on domestic property (where the owner shares the
income) will still be allowed.

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.



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


There is no doubt that PV panels at today's tarriffs are extremely
profitable. Payback is in months, not years. So you wont be out of pocket
even if they only last a couple of years.

I don' think that you have asked for a quote for professional panel
installation have you? If you do you will be "sold" a deal that returns
about 7-8% (best case), which looks good until you take into account the
life of the equipment. Assuming 5% cost of funds, it will take you 40 years
to get your money back.

Note, that to receive the feed in tariff you MUST have a professional
installation

tim

"Tabby" wrote in message
...
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.

That's a creative conclusion

TIM- so what's your conclusion?

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.

30 years in a fairly high tech area is very much immature. Look at
where petrol cars were in 1920, radios in 1940, TVs in 1955, computers
in 1950.

TIM - 30 years is an awful long time in electronics. (15 iterations of
Moores' law equals an increase in capability and/or decrease in costs of
30,000 times)

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,

The real payback figures are hopeless for PV. Howeevr there are plenty
of issues to conveniently overlook to make it look workable.

TIM - the fact that commercial operations sink their money into it shows
that you are wrong. That's when you include the feed in tariff, which is
taken as read from the question. (If you want to discuss the situation
without that then take your point to a part of the thread that is discussing
that)

but unlike other
home improvements this one lives and dies on its financial benefits as the
other "user" benefits are zero.

The motivation to go PV is usually the idea that its a green
technology.

TIM - The average punter doesn't "go green" on principle. He only does it
if there is something for him as well

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

indeed... try finding such a deal.

TIM - If you have the right house it is very easy to get.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 06/04/2011 16:49, David WE Roberts wrote:


With the arrival of FIT schemes that are prepared to pay many times the
actual value of the electricity you export to the grid, then maybe. There
are some things to keep in mind if buying your own system - will it last
long enough, and will the FITs remain available for the duration[1].

Another option doing the rounds is a scheme where an operator pays you for
the use of the space, and installs their equipment. Obviously the upsides
are smaller, but then so are the risks.

[1] In theory you have a contractual lock on the other party to pay the
price agreed for the duration, however the cynic in me suspects that the
deal is with a subsidiary company of the plc that was setup for the
purpose. If it were to convienently go into liquidation at some point you
may be stuffed.

They are government guarenteed. Whilst the Government may renege it will be
by act of parliament, not because some anonymous company goes into
liquidation

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 06/04/2011 21:22, Tim Streater wrote:

Yup agreed, however I was actually thinking of the cases where you buy the
kit outright on the understanding that you make enough profit if you get
paid 43p/kwh for 25 years.

You don't get a deal like that.

You get a deal whereby the installer installs, you pay him and he walks
away.

The amount that you get back (from the leccy co/government) is a "risk",
that you take.

That's a long time in the energy supply business, and to suddenly find that
after 7 years your FIT payer vanishes, and you are back to saving grid cost
per kwa, you would probably never see a payback.

the FIT payer is the government

tim

"Vortex10" wrote in message
...
On 06/04/2011 4:49 PM, David WE Roberts wrote:
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?

Is solar power now a reasonable prospect subject to the usual caveats
about unproven long term technology and untrusted long term government
policy?

Having a large south facing roof is making me wonder if I should get
some quotes.
Also a couple of friends who are generally financially savvy are going
down this route.

Cheers

Dave R

Don't "fanny about" and get some quotes because that costs nothing.

If you have lots of space don't get hung up on the efficiency of the
panel, and end up paying more because it's all about £ per kWp. The
"rated" output of the panel (not it's area or efficiency) being used to
judge the size of the installation.

A 2kWp installation will be something under 16m^2 and should cost ~£7k5 -
£8k0 or less

Have you seen quotes at this level?

My sister has an easy roof on a bungalow to install on and is being quoted
in excess of twice that

tim

Another Dave wrote:
On 07/04/2011 02:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Cos the FITS wont last very long, if what's happening all over Europe
and the world, is anything to go by


A bloke called Ridley was claiming in The Times the other day that it's
feasible to floodlight the PV array using off-peak electricity and still
turn a profit at 3am!


That may be possible. But I think its easier to use a diesl generator.

Can't provide a link, they've started charging for access to their web
site.

Another Dave

On Apr 6, 4:49*pm, "David WE Roberts"
wrote:
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.

And still ignores other factors that are harder to put a price on,
such as a personal desire to be less dependent on the grid.

MBQ

On Apr 6, 8:34*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
"root" wrote in message

...



On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:49:40 -0700, David WE Roberts wrote:
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?

Is solar power now a reasonable prospect subject to the usual caveats
about
unproven long term technology and untrusted long term government policy?

Having a large south facing roof is making me wonder if I should get some
quotes.
Also a couple of friends who are generally financially savvy are going
down
this route.

To toss another factor into the equation ...
While the tech is improving, do you really want to buy now and lumber
yourself with a system that could be much less efficient than something
that comes out in a few years time?

For example, if you spend £12k now and buy a PV system that just about
pays its way provided you amortise the cost over 25 years. What could
you do if a new development makes systems available that would be
lower cost, more efficient and recoup their costs in 10 years?

Efficiency doesn't matter.
You get a return of about 9% for 25 years.
This is way better than any annuity on the market so if you can use your
pension to buy them you are quids in.
If you use them as a savings account things are not as clear cut.

Also the returns are likely to be lower if the costs drop as the government
won't need to have such a high incentive to get you to fit them.

There are companies that will install solar PV for free.
However they get the FITs

And virtual ownership of your roof.

MBQ

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.

"PV cells" been around a *lot* longer than that. The modern technology
is *certainly* immature.

If I had a suitable roof, I wouldn't enter into any deal other than one
where the installer takes all of the risk.

And sign away the rights to your roof. I certainly would not buy a
house with copnditions like that attached.

MBQ

John Rumm wrote:
On 07/04/2011 11:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Another Dave wrote:
On 07/04/2011 02:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Cos the FITS wont last very long, if what's happening all over Europe
and the world, is anything to go by


A bloke called Ridley was claiming in The Times the other day that
it's feasible to floodlight the PV array using off-peak electricity
and still turn a profit at 3am!


That may be possible. But I think its easier to use a diesl generator.

Perhaps so, but the floodlighting example does better illustrate the
daftness of the scheme ;-)

all this local generation is a sop to greens, and completely pointless
really.

Its a good way to get the little people employed sticking them on
rooves, and the little people feeling they have Done Something and made
a smart profit too.

Troubles is if everyone deos it, all that happens is that there is a
10x increase of electricity prices and you end up where you started
relatively.

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 02:21:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

However, should the bloody thing pack up before its paid for itself, the
onus would be on you to get it fixed.

And I wouldn't mind betting that the guvmint might not at some stage
discover a legal loophole in that fitting a new panel to replace a
busted one, was a 'new install' and suddenly wasn't eligible for any FIT
at all.

That I can see happening, though isn't the FIT cash coming via a levy
on the electicity companies, rather than out of the treasury? It's
only been channeled through the government.

Cos the FITS wont last very long, if what's happening all over Europe
and the world, is anything to go by

Well they have started chipping away at what is eligiable for FIT
payments already. Give it a few years and they will be gone for new
installs. As some one said it's a bit of race to get 'em in now
before the FIT are either removed or become less financially
attractive. You are still taking a gamble on not having significant
maintenance costs though.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 02:21:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

However, should the bloody thing pack up before its paid for itself, the
onus would be on you to get it fixed.

And I wouldn't mind betting that the guvmint might not at some stage
discover a legal loophole in that fitting a new panel to replace a
busted one, was a 'new install' and suddenly wasn't eligible for any FIT
at all.

That I can see happening, though isn't the FIT cash coming via a levy
on the electicity companies, rather than out of the treasury? It's
only been channeled through the government.

The guvmint REQUIRE the operators to pay FITS,. So instead of being a
state subsidy its a ..state subsidy, that doesn't appear on the guvmint
books.

Its like being required to employ deaf dumb and blind idiots at inflated
wages, by passing a law, all the expense falls SomeWhere Else.(TM)

This allows the renewables assholes to say 'but we are not subsidised,
honest guv!'

However the effect is a tax on electricity consumers that gets passed
directly to antisocial people installing useless PV panels, at the
pubilic's expense,



Cos the FITS wont last very long, if what's happening all over Europe
and the world, is anything to go by

Well they have started chipping away at what is eligiable for FIT
payments already. Give it a few years and they will be gone for new
installs. As some one said it's a bit of race to get 'em in now
before the FIT are either removed or become less financially
attractive. You are still taking a gamble on not having significant
maintenance costs though.


Exactly, If the thing goes phut before its even paid for itself, you are
out of pocket.

I wont cry.

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:23:02 +0100, Another Dave wrote:
On 07/04/2011 02:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Cos the FITS wont last very long, if what's happening all over Europe
and the world, is anything to go by


A bloke called Ridley was claiming in The Times the other day that it's
feasible to floodlight the PV array using off-peak electricity and still
turn a profit at 3am!

While it sounds like a nice idea, I call bull on that. The efficiency
of floodlights is quite low and the efficiency of solar panels is, too.
Even if the PV converted 25% of incident light into electricity, AND
you had lights that converted 25% of their power into usable light,
you still end up with 0.25 * 0.25 - 1/16 th of the power out that you
put in. PLUS, you'd need a lot of lights to fully illuminate a
decent sized array - a single 1KW job pointing at it would not do,
since a lot of the array would not be lit by it (unless the PV was
circular, and the light was far enough away).

Even if you get zero spill and don't have the neighbours complaining
(or grassing) and the cops don't assume you're growing pot, the conversion
losses still outweigh the FIT gain.

On 07/04/2011 15:42, root wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:23:02 +0100, Another Dave wrote:

A bloke called Ridley was claiming in The Times the other day that it's
feasible to floodlight the PV array using off-peak electricity and still
turn a profit at 3am!

While it sounds like a nice idea, I call bull on that. The efficiency
of floodlights is quite low and the efficiency of solar panels is, too.
Even if the PV converted 25% of incident light into electricity, AND
you had lights that converted 25% of their power into usable light,
you still end up with 0.25 * 0.25 - 1/16 th of the power out that you
put in.

I didn't say he was right :-)

I agree with you that it's not feasible - but with the FIT being 8-10
times that of off-peak electricity it's not that much of an
exaggeration. There are LEDs which are nearly twice as efficient as
standard fluorescents, although only in the lab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_lig...nal_parameters

Another Dave

In article , noone_you-
says...
A bloke called Ridley was claiming in The Times the other day that it's
feasible to floodlight the PV array using off-peak electricity and still
turn a profit at 3am!

While it sounds like a nice idea, I call bull on that. The efficiency
of floodlights is quite low and the efficiency of solar panels is, too.

You could cheat and just feed off-peak power back into the grid as if it
were solar.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

On 07/04/2011 17:34, Another Dave wrote:
There are LEDs which are nearly twice as efficient as
standard fluorescents, although only in the lab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_lig...nal_parameters


Correction. More than twice as efficient. So still not feasible, merely
possible.

Another Dave

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 07/04/2011 11:06, tim.... wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On 06/04/2011 21:22, Tim Streater wrote:

Yup agreed, however I was actually thinking of the cases where you buy
the
kit outright on the understanding that you make enough profit if you get
paid 43p/kwh for 25 years.

You don't get a deal like that.

You get a deal whereby the installer installs, you pay him and he walks
away.

The amount that you get back (from the leccy co/government) is a "risk",
that you take.

That's a long time in the energy supply business, and to suddenly find
that
after 7 years your FIT payer vanishes, and you are back to saving grid
cost
per kwa, you would probably never see a payback.

the FIT payer is the government

I was under the impression it came via the lekky company? Still if its the
gov, then we know we can trust them to never go back on the deal!

Well it does come from the leccy company but it's "guaranteed" by the
government.

see my previous comment about this guarantee

tim

A 2kWp installation will be something under 16m^2 and should cost ~£7k5 -
£8k0 or less

Have you seen quotes at this level?

My sister has an easy roof on a bungalow to install on and is being quoted
in excess of twice that

tim



I purchased 2.

2.03kWp, January 2010, £8993
1.925kWp, August 2011, £8250

.....and prices are going down not up.

Try www.photonenergy.co.uk

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 18:01:09 +0100, Vortex10 wrote:

I purchased 2.

Purchased, past tense.

2.03kWp, January 2010, £8993
1.925kWp, August 2011, £8250

Er, it's only April 2011.

.....and prices are going down not up.

So why buy now, not in 5 months time for a lower price?

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 07/04/2011 8:08 PM, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 18:01:09 +0100, Vortex10 wrote:

I purchased 2.

Purchased, past tense.

2.03kWp, January 2010, £8993
1.925kWp, August 2011, £8250

Er, it's only April 2011.

I meant August 2010. berrrrrrrrrrr.


.....and prices are going down not up.

So why buy now, not in 5 months time for a lower price?

On 07/04/2011 11:06, tim.... wrote:

the FIT payer is the government


Taxpayer surely.

Andy

In message , Another Dave
writes
On 07/04/2011 15:42, root wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:23:02 +0100, Another Dave wrote:

A bloke called Ridley was claiming in The Times the other day that it's
feasible to floodlight the PV array using off-peak electricity and still
turn a profit at 3am!

While it sounds like a nice idea, I call bull on that. The efficiency
of floodlights is quite low and the efficiency of solar panels is, too.
Even if the PV converted 25% of incident light into electricity, AND
you had lights that converted 25% of their power into usable light,
you still end up with 0.25 * 0.25 - 1/16 th of the power out that you
put in.

I didn't say he was right :-)

I agree with you that it's not feasible - but with the FIT being 8-10
times that of off-peak electricity it's not that much of an
exaggeration. There are LEDs which are nearly twice as efficient as
standard fluorescents, although only in the lab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_lig...nal_parameters


Would LED lamps work with a PV panel?

Me and eldest daughter were playing around with a kit she was given that
had small PV panel in. We were measuring the output voltage, as it
wasn't driving the motor in the kit, IIRC the LED maglite torch we tried
on it didn't produce anything really
--
Chris French

On 06/04/2011 18:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
tim.... wrote:
"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...
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.

No, the sums still don't add up for solar water heating.

They only add up for PV because the electricity from a PV panel is sold
at over ten times what its worth, cost paid by the rest of electricity
consumers.

In fact its sold for more than it costs to generate with a diesel
generator.

Which is where a lot of 'solar electricity' actually comes from, allegedly.


That would be 'alleged' by you.

Good call!

On 07/04/2011 12:32, John Rumm wrote:
On 07/04/2011 11:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Another Dave wrote:
On 07/04/2011 02:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Cos the FITS wont last very long, if what's happening all over Europe
and the world, is anything to go by


A bloke called Ridley was claiming in The Times the other day that
it's feasible to floodlight the PV array using off-peak electricity
and still turn a profit at 3am!


That may be possible. But I think its easier to use a diesl generator.

Perhaps so, but the floodlighting example does better illustrate the
daftness of the scheme ;-)


It would if you accepted the arguments of idiots.

The FIT is based on a calculated power basis, which uses the alignment,
location and area of panels to provide a nominal annual power rating.
This is what earns the higher (Generation Tarrif) rate per kwh.

The excess electricity generated and actually sent into the Grid earns
the Export Tariff of (gosh) 3.1p per kwh.

If you really think you can floodlight PVs and make a profit at 3.1p per
kwh, you are deluded.

And someone believes "a bloke called Ridley", just because he's in a
newspaper...

On 07/04/2011 17:40, Skipweasel wrote:
In , noone_you-
says...
A bloke called Ridley was claiming in The Times the other day that it's
feasible to floodlight the PV array using off-peak electricity and still
turn a profit at 3am!

While it sounds like a nice idea, I call bull on that. The efficiency
of floodlights is quite low and the efficiency of solar panels is, too.

You could cheat and just feed off-peak power back into the grid as if it
were solar.


Why pay off peak prices for 3.1p/kwh return?

On Apr 7, 11:01*am, "tim...." wrote:
"Tabby" wrote in message
...
On Apr 6, 5:58 pm, "tim...." wrote:
"David WE Roberts" wrote in
...


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.

30 years in a fairly high tech area is very much immature. Look at
where petrol cars were in 1920, radios in 1940, TVs in 1955, computers
in 1950.

TIM - 30 years is an awful long time in electronics. *(15 iterations of
Moores' law equals an increase in capability and/or decrease in costs of
30,000 times)

Indeed. But too short to reach any kind of maturity with the tougher
problems, which include PV, cars, tvs, etc.


The real payback figures are hopeless for PV. Howeevr there are plenty
of issues to conveniently overlook to make it look workable.

TIM - the fact that commercial operations sink their money into it shows
that you are wrong.

not really. If a political party pays me £1000 to invest in a 1%
savings account, its still a lacklustre 1% account.


but unlike other
home improvements this one lives and dies on its financial benefits as the
other "user" benefits are zero.

The motivation to go PV is usually the idea that its a green
technology.

TIM - The average punter doesn't "go green" on principle. *He only does it
if there is something for him as well

Those that install solar pv arent average punters, they're a very non-
average set.


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

indeed... try finding such a deal.

TIM - If you have the right house it is very easy to get.

So I now know. But this is solely due to a political agenda payment.
And how long that will last who knows. Its a real shame that genuinely
innovative useful systems are specifically excluded, making the whole
exercise rather pointless.


NT

On Apr 7, 3:22*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 02:21:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

However, should the bloody thing pack up before its paid for itself, the
onus would be on you to get it fixed.

And I wouldn't mind betting that the guvmint might not at some stage
discover a legal loophole in that fitting a new panel to replace a
busted one, was a 'new install' and suddenly wasn't eligible for any FIT
at all.

That I can see happening, though isn't the FIT cash coming via a levy
on the electicity companies, rather than out of the treasury? It's
only been channeled through the government.

The guvmint REQUIRE the operators to pay FITS,. So instead of being a
state subsidy its a ..state subsidy, that doesn't appear on the guvmint
books.

Its like being required to employ deaf dumb and blind idiots at inflated
wages, by passing a law, all the expense falls SomeWhere Else.(TM)

This allows the renewables assholes to say 'but we are not subsidised,
honest guv!'

However the effect is a tax on electricity consumers that gets passed
directly to antisocial people installing useless PV panels, at the
pubilic's expense,



Cos the FITS wont last very long, if what's happening all over Europe
and the world, is anything to go by

Well they have started chipping away at what is eligiable for FIT
payments already. Give it a few years and they will be gone for new
installs. As some one said it's a bit of race to get 'em in now
before the FIT are either removed or become less financially
attractive. You are still taking a gamble on not having significant
maintenance costs though.

Exactly, If the thing goes phut before its even paid for itself, you are
out of pocket.

I wont cry.

I quiet agree with you on this. Just one small detail: if I've
understood correctly, FIT payments arent connected to energy really
produced, so the system can be as dead as a parrot, you don't need to
fix it to get paid.


NT