On Jun 13, 8:21*pm, harry wrote:
On Jun 13, 10:30*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:52:55 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:
I don't think i get enough sun :(

You don't need direct sun light. They collect solar radiation that is
present even without bright sunlight. Obviously you get most energy
collcted under bright direct sun conditions but even cloudy days will
collect something.

--
Cheers
Dave.

They are not economic if they lie in shadow. *You get about one tenth
of the full output. *Because they are in series a shadow onone affects
all.

They shouldn't be in series for that very reason. if they are then you
were sold a dud.

MBQ

On Jun 13, 2:20*pm, BruceB wrote:
In article , says...



On 13-06-2011 09:15, Jim K wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K
Because they are typically about 19% efficent. There are developments in
progress which will greatly increase the efficency thus making them
economically viable. They will also get cheaper. I'd wait about 5 years
and then get some. Whilst waiting get a solar thermal system installed.

Waiting for them to become more efficient does not mean that the
economic case for them will improve. *The subsidy at the moment is so
good (the FIT rate) and it is guaranteed to be indexed at rpi that if
you have the capital it is a no-brainer. *You will earn 8-12% inflation
proofed on your investment for 25 years.

Problem is I do not intend being in this house for the next 25 years
and I doubt the panels will add anything like their true "value" to
the sale price of the house.

If they were truly viable without massive subsidy then this would not
be an issue.

MBQ

On Jun 14, 12:03*pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jun 14, 10:51 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:









cynic wrote:
On Jun 13, 2:20 pm, BruceB wrote:
In article , says....

On 13-06-2011 09:15, Jim K wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?
Cheers
Jim K
Because they are typically about 19% efficent. There are developments in
progress which will greatly increase the efficency thus making them
economically viable. They will also get cheaper. I'd wait about 5 years
and then get some. Whilst waiting get a solar thermal system installed.
Waiting for them to become more efficient does not mean that the
economic case for them will improve. *The subsidy at the moment is so
good (the FIT rate) and it is guaranteed to be indexed at rpi that if
you have the capital it is a no-brainer. *You will earn 8-12% inflation
proofed on your investment for 25 years. *I do not know of a better
investment the average person can access. *Certainly much better than
putting a pension lump sum into an annuity.
Regards
Bruce

And every time the energy companies raises the price of electricity
the payback period reduces.
Taking the moral high ground and saying the consumers who dont have
panels will pay for those who do doesn't change the fiscal reality.
The question is do you want to be one of those who benefit or one of
those who pay for others to do so?

well we know where harry stands.

interesting calculator he-

http://www.solaressence.co.uk/pv-pri...ff-payback-cal...

you can tweak all their assumptions and play around with it all (e.g.
correct their 80% panel efficiency after 30 years "assumption"), lower
their 9% p.a. elec. inflation figure

in fact just lowering that to 4.5% (say, still 1% above their RPI
figure) reduced the overall benefit to 5.9% AER over 25years on a 4kw
system - also I can't see any allowances in there for new inverters
(£???), cleaning, insurance, repairs, accidents and other risks on the
"purchase"...

mmmm anyone care to comment?

Jim K

It's all very well saying you will get x% return for 25 years, but do
you get your capital back at the end? No.

MBQ

On Jun 13, 11:47*am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"RobertL" wrote in message

...

He pays, say, £12,000 for installation and will never see that money
again. He can't 'back out' and get his money back. *It will be 10
years or so before he starts to see any net positive result from his
investment. *After 25 years the income stops.

Nobody would buy an investment bond like that.

Look up annuity.

An anuuity carries on paying out when you move house for whatever
reason.

Annuities don't require massive tax payer funded subsidies.

MBQ

On Jun 13, 12:23*pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:32 am, John Rumm wrote:









On 13/06/2011 09:59, RobertL wrote:

On Jun 13, 9:15 am, Jim *wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

He pays, say, 12,000 for installation and will never see that money
again. He can't 'back out' and get his money back. *It will be 10
years or so before he starts to see any net positive result from his
investment. *After 25 years the income stops.

Nobody would buy an investment bond like that.

Due to the distortion of the market by the subsidies that we are all
paying owners of these systems, he will yield a return approaching 10% a
year. Compared to the rates available elsewhere, that's currently quite
a good deal.

Do a quick spreadsheet of 12K compounded at 5% and compare it to the
typical FiT income. Even ignoring the offset of some electricity not
purchased the numbers can look attractive.

So looked at in hard financial terms, it makes sense if you have the
capital sat there doing nothing and no immediate use for it. (obviously
ignoring all the valid arguments over the environmental pointlessness of it)

ah curses - he may have a point!?

what is typical FiT over say 10years

What is the typical tax rate going to be in 10 years time? The
government could change the scheme on a whim.

MBQ

On Jun 13, 1:59*pm, Roger Mills wrote:
On 13/06/2011 11:32, John Rumm wrote:



Due to the distortion of the market by the subsidies that we are all
paying owners of these systems, he will yield a return approaching 10% a
year. Compared to the rates available elsewhere, that's currently quite
a good deal.

But it ain't like a normal investment because you never get your capital
back - more like an annuity, I suppose, except that it's for a finite
term, not until you die.

And the "annuity rate" can be changed (downwarsd) on a whim by a
subsequent government.

MBQ

On Jun 14, 12:16*pm, "Man at B&Q" wrote:
On Jun 13, 8:21*pm, harry wrote:





On Jun 13, 10:30*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:52:55 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:
I don't think i get enough sun :(

You don't need direct sun light. They collect solar radiation that is
present even without bright sunlight. Obviously you get most energy
collcted under bright direct sun conditions but even cloudy days will
collect something.

--
Cheers
Dave.

They are not economic if they lie in shadow. *You get about one tenth
of the full output. *Because they are in series a shadow onone affects
all.

They shouldn't be in series for that very reason. if they are then you
were sold a dud.

MBQ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dont spout nonsense. A number of panels are connected in series to
form a string to give the appropriate voltage. For higher powers the
series strings are connected in parallel. Typically a 3.96kW array
will consist of two 9 x 220 watt panel strings side by side to give an
18 panel array

On Jun 13, 8:15*pm, harry wrote:
On Jun 13, 9:15*am, Jim K wrote:

arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K

I have a PVarray myself. Your arsehole relative is on a winner.
The anticipated return on my system is11% on capital laid out,
inflation linked, tax free for 25 years.

The only down sides are, is the technology reliable? and you can't get
your money back once you've spent it.
*Oh and hard to take with you if you move house.
So in fact, the prick is you.

I do sincerely hope the government see sense and cut off the silly
subsidies for PV.

MBQ

On Jun 14, 12:29*pm, cynic wrote:
On Jun 14, 12:16*pm, "Man at B&Q" wrote:









On Jun 13, 8:21*pm, harry wrote:

On Jun 13, 10:30*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:52:55 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:
I don't think i get enough sun :(

You don't need direct sun light. They collect solar radiation that is
present even without bright sunlight. Obviously you get most energy
collcted under bright direct sun conditions but even cloudy days will
collect something.

--
Cheers
Dave.

They are not economic if they lie in shadow. *You get about one tenth
of the full output. *Because they are in series a shadow onone affects
all.

They shouldn't be in series for that very reason. if they are then you
were sold a dud.

MBQ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dont spout nonsense. *A number of panels are connected in series to
form a string to give the appropriate voltage. For higher powers the
series strings are connected in parallel. Typically a 3.96kW array
will consist of two 9 x 220 watt panel strings side by side to give an
18 panel array

Try reading what was said. "a shadow on one affects *all*" [my
emphasis. A series/parallel combination will mitigate problems with
one panel to a greater or lesser extent.

MBQ

On Jun 14, 12:19 pm, "Man at B&Q" wrote:
On Jun 14, 12:03 pm, Jim K wrote:



On Jun 14, 10:51 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

cynic wrote:
On Jun 13, 2:20 pm, BruceB wrote:
In article , says...

On 13-06-2011 09:15, Jim K wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?
Cheers
Jim K
Because they are typically about 19% efficent. There are developments in
progress which will greatly increase the efficency thus making them
economically viable. They will also get cheaper. I'd wait about 5 years
and then get some. Whilst waiting get a solar thermal system installed.
Waiting for them to become more efficient does not mean that the
economic case for them will improve. The subsidy at the moment is so
good (the FIT rate) and it is guaranteed to be indexed at rpi that if
you have the capital it is a no-brainer. You will earn 8-12% inflation
proofed on your investment for 25 years. I do not know of a better
investment the average person can access. Certainly much better than
putting a pension lump sum into an annuity.
Regards
Bruce

And every time the energy companies raises the price of electricity
the payback period reduces.
Taking the moral high ground and saying the consumers who dont have
panels will pay for those who do doesn't change the fiscal reality.
The question is do you want to be one of those who benefit or one of
those who pay for others to do so?

well we know where harry stands.

interesting calculator he-

http://www.solaressence.co.uk/pv-pri...ff-payback-cal...

you can tweak all their assumptions and play around with it all (e.g.
correct their 80% panel efficiency after 30 years "assumption"), lower
their 9% p.a. elec. inflation figure

in fact just lowering that to 4.5% (say, still 1% above their RPI
figure) reduced the overall benefit to 5.9% AER over 25years on a 4kw
system - also I can't see any allowances in there for new inverters
(£???), cleaning, insurance, repairs, accidents and other risks on the
"purchase"...

mmmm anyone care to comment?

Jim K

It's all very well saying you will get x% return for 25 years, but do
you get your capital back at the end? No.

MBQ

er yeah that's factored in on the calculator I think ? "breakeven" etc

In other words you (just about) get your original capital back
(allegedly) after 7-10yrs ....erm... assuming nothing has needed
repairing or replacing, & erm.... just when most guarantees are about
to/have run out....leaving you on your own for the rest of the 25years
of "pure profit" forecasted.....

Jim K

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Jun 13, 8:23 pm, harry wrote:
On Jun 13, 10:32 am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:
You probably need to get him to look at things like trusting HMG
not
to change the FIT rules over the next 20 to 25 years?

are we assuming the install will still work by then? ;)

Another good point. What is the expected, realistic, life of the
panels? How will their efficiency have changed?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Efficiency is guaranteed for educe by less than1%/year.
There are 40yr old ones running @ 80% of original output.

Were thay mass produced and made down to a price?

Of course they were.
Look at all the other mass produced electronics, its cheap and reliable.

No, thought not.

MBQ

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Jun 14, 12:03 pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jun 14, 10:51 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

8

interesting calculator he-

http://www.solaressence.co.uk/pv-pri...ff-payback-cal...

you can tweak all their assumptions and play around with it all (e.g.
correct their 80% panel efficiency after 30 years "assumption"), lower
their 9% p.a. elec. inflation figure

in fact just lowering that to 4.5% (say, still 1% above their RPI
figure) reduced the overall benefit to 5.9% AER over 25years on a 4kw
system - also I can't see any allowances in there for new inverters
(£???), cleaning, insurance, repairs, accidents and other risks on the
"purchase"...

mmmm anyone care to comment?

Jim K

It's all very well saying you will get x% return for 25 years, but do
you get your capital back at the end? No.

You get an income for 25 years equal to about 2.5 times your initial
investment.
You may get additional income at a lower rate after 25 years.

Beat that!


MBQ

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Jun 13, 11:47 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"RobertL" wrote in message

...

He pays, say, £12,000 for installation and will never see that money
again. He can't 'back out' and get his money back. It will be 10
years or so before he starts to see any net positive result from his
investment. After 25 years the income stops.

Nobody would buy an investment bond like that.

Look up annuity.

An anuuity carries on paying out when you move house for whatever
reason.

So do the fits.
You can sell them to the new owner or rent the roof space using the free
electricity.


Annuities don't require massive tax payer funded subsidies.

No? they need pension credits the way things are.
Labour stole a lot of cash from funds and now tax payers will have to top up
pensions.

On Jun 14, 1:53 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...

On Jun 14, 12:03 pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jun 14, 10:51 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

8



interesting calculator he-

http://www.solaressence.co.uk/pv-pri...ff-payback-cal....

you can tweak all their assumptions and play around with it all (e.g.
correct their 80% panel efficiency after 30 years "assumption"), lower
their 9% p.a. elec. inflation figure

in fact just lowering that to 4.5% (say, still 1% above their RPI
figure) reduced the overall benefit to 5.9% AER over 25years on a 4kw
system - also I can't see any allowances in there for new inverters
(£???), cleaning, insurance, repairs, accidents and other risks on the
"purchase"...

mmmm anyone care to comment?

Jim K

It's all very well saying you will get x% return for 25 years, but do
you get your capital back at the end? No.

You get an income for 25 years equal to about 2.5 times your initial
investment.

theoretcially perhaps...

Beat that!

OK on the other hand sticking your wedge in perhaps a series of no/
limited access savings products at say an average of 5% for 25years
and doing ***** all* else would get you more (if you hadn't actually
needed it earlier for one of life's unexpecteds)

Jim K

On Jun 14, 1:40*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...









On Jun 13, 8:23 pm, harry wrote:
On Jun 13, 10:32 am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:
You probably need to get him to look at things like trusting HMG
not
to change the FIT rules over the next 20 to 25 years?

are we assuming the install will still work by then? ;)

Another good point. What is the expected, realistic, life of the
panels? How will their efficiency have changed?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Efficiency is guaranteed for educe by less than1%/year.
There are 40yr old ones running @ 80% of original output.

Were thay mass produced and made down to a price?

Of course they were.
Look at all the other mass produced electronics, its cheap and reliable.

PV arrays 40 years ago? I would say it was a niche market and nothing
like the cost cutting that is going on now.

MBQ

On Jun 14, 1:57*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...









On Jun 13, 11:47 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"RobertL" wrote in message

....

He pays, say, 12,000 for installation and will never see that money
again. He can't 'back out' and get his money back. *It will be 10
years or so before he starts to see any net positive result from his
investment. *After 25 years the income stops.

Nobody would buy an investment bond like that.

Look up annuity.

An anuuity carries on paying out when you move house for whatever
reason.

So do the fits.
You can sell them to the new owner

Assuming the new owner will pay anything over the otherwise value of
the house.

or rent the roof space using the free
electricity.

How do you rent a roof space that is on a house you have sold?

Annuities don't require massive tax payer funded subsidies.

No? they need pension credits the way things are.

The people needing pension credits are generally the ones who have no
other pension provision, i.e. the ones with no annuities.

Labour stole a lot of cash from funds and now tax payers will

The effect was nothing like as bad as some people would have you
believe and anyone who has not adjusted their pension strategy in the
meantime is a blinkered fool who should be thrown in the poor house of
neccessary.

MBQ

On Jun 14, 1:53*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...

On Jun 14, 12:03 pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jun 14, 10:51 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

8









interesting calculator he-

http://www.solaressence.co.uk/pv-pri...ff-payback-cal....

you can tweak all their assumptions and play around with it all (e.g.
correct their 80% panel efficiency after 30 years "assumption"), lower
their 9% p.a. elec. inflation figure

in fact just lowering that to 4.5% (say, still 1% above their RPI
figure) reduced the overall benefit to 5.9% AER over 25years on a 4kw
system - also I can't see any allowances in there for new inverters
(£???), cleaning, insurance, repairs, accidents and other risks on the
"purchase"...

mmmm anyone care to comment?

Jim K

It's all very well saying you will get x% return for 25 years, but do
you get your capital back at the end? No.

You get an income for 25 years equal to about 2.5 times your initial
investment.

The figure of £12k has been bandied around I believe. So £30k (2.5
times) over 25 years.

Stick the £12000 in a high interest account at 4% compound would give
you £32k.

MBQ

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 06:16:53 -0700, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Jun 14, 1:40Â*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in
messagenews:a035274b-8375-402c-
...









On Jun 13, 8:23 pm, harry wrote:
On Jun 13, 10:32 am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:
You probably need to get him to look at things like trusting
HMG
not
to change the FIT rules over the next 20 to 25 years?

are we assuming the install will still work by then? ;)

Another good point. What is the expected, realistic, life of the
panels? How will their efficiency have changed?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Efficiency is guaranteed for educe by less than1%/year. There are
40yr old ones running @ 80% of original output.

Were thay mass produced and made down to a price?

Of course they were.
Look at all the other mass produced electronics, its cheap and
reliable.

PV arrays 40 years ago? I would say it was a niche market and nothing
like the cost cutting that is going on now.

And the 40 year old ones didn't use kead free solder. (ducks)




--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:23:15 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Jun 13, 10:32*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:
You probably need to get him to look at things like trusting HMG
not
to change the FIT rules over the next 20 to 25 years?

are we assuming the install will still work by then? ;)

Another good point. What is the expected, realistic, life of the
panels? How will their efficiency have changed?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Efficiency is guaranteed for educe by less than1%/year.
There are 40yr old ones running @ 80% of original output.

But then what's 80% of FA?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:23:54 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
wrote:

On Jun 13, 12:23*pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:32 am, John Rumm wrote:

On 13/06/2011 09:59, RobertL wrote:

On Jun 13, 9:15 am, Jim *wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

He pays, say, 12,000 for installation and will never see that money
again. He can't 'back out' and get his money back. *It will be 10
years or so before he starts to see any net positive result from his
investment. *After 25 years the income stops.

Nobody would buy an investment bond like that.

Due to the distortion of the market by the subsidies that we are all
paying owners of these systems, he will yield a return approaching 10% a
year. Compared to the rates available elsewhere, that's currently quite
a good deal.

Do a quick spreadsheet of 12K compounded at 5% and compare it to the
typical FiT income. Even ignoring the offset of some electricity not
purchased the numbers can look attractive.

So looked at in hard financial terms, it makes sense if you have the
capital sat there doing nothing and no immediate use for it. (obviously
ignoring all the valid arguments over the environmental pointlessness of it)

ah curses - he may have a point!?

what is typical FiT over say 10years

What is the typical tax rate going to be in 10 years time? The
government could change the scheme on a whim.

And the more popular the scheme is the more likely they will be to
change it.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Jun 14, 12:32*pm, "Man at B&Q" wrote:
On Jun 14, 12:29*pm, cynic wrote:





On Jun 14, 12:16*pm, "Man at B&Q" wrote:

On Jun 13, 8:21*pm, harry wrote:

On Jun 13, 10:30*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:52:55 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:
I don't think i get enough sun :(

You don't need direct sun light. They collect solar radiation that is
present even without bright sunlight. Obviously you get most energy
collcted under bright direct sun conditions but even cloudy days will
collect something.

--
Cheers
Dave.

They are not economic if they lie in shadow. *You get about one tenth
of the full output. *Because they are in series a shadow onone affects
all.

They shouldn't be in series for that very reason. if they are then you
were sold a dud.

MBQ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dont spout nonsense. *A number of panels are connected in series to
form a string to give the appropriate voltage. For higher powers the
series strings are connected in parallel. Typically a 3.96kW array
will consist of two 9 x 220 watt panel strings side by side to give an
18 panel array

Try reading what was said. "a shadow on one affects *all*" [my
emphasis. A series/parallel combination will mitigate problems with
one panel to a greater or lesser extent.

MBQ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You actually said and I quote -

"They shouldn't be in series for that very reason. if they are then
you
were sold a dud."

Which is utter nonsense

On Jun 13, 8:38*pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jun 13, 8:34 pm, harry wrote:





On Jun 13, 12:23 pm, Jim K wrote:

On Jun 13, 11:32 am, John Rumm wrote:

On 13/06/2011 09:59, RobertL wrote:

On Jun 13, 9:15 am, Jim *wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

He pays, say, 12,000 for installation and will never see that money
again. He can't 'back out' and get his money back. *It will be 10
years or so before he starts to see any net positive result from his
investment. *After 25 years the income stops.

Nobody would buy an investment bond like that.

Due to the distortion of the market by the subsidies that we are all
paying owners of these systems, he will yield a return approaching 10% a
year. Compared to the rates available elsewhere, that's currently quite
a good deal.

Do a quick spreadsheet of 12K compounded at 5% and compare it to the
typical FiT income. Even ignoring the offset of some electricity not
purchased the numbers can look attractive.

So looked at in hard financial terms, it makes sense if you have the
capital sat there doing nothing and no immediate use for it. (obviously
ignoring all the valid arguments over the environmental pointlessness of it)

ah curses - he may have a point!?

what is typical FiT over say 10years - can you point me plse? *Are any
analyses online for total 10yr/20yr lifespans? including increased
insurance, inverter replacements, necessary maintainance etc?

Ta
Jim K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They have old PV panels at Machynlleth (West Wales) Alternative
Technology Centre.

Yes there are analyses.

do point! ;)

Mine is for an annual generation of 3320 Kwh
(=£1746) . I have *perfect site. *You get one with the quotation.

On Jun 13, 9:23*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Jim K" wrote in message

...

On Jun 13, 8:53 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Jim K" wrote in message

....

They have a ten year guarantee.

ah ha.... i.e. a theoretical maximum guarantee is only 10 years....
shurely better to recalc your "win win" on 10yrs and hope for best??

The ones I am thinking about have a 25 year guarantee.
The fitting is only a 10 year guarantee though

specify "the ones" please....

Mitsubishi IIRC, they are the ones eon are using.
#

Mine are Mitsubishi too. Fronius inverter.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Jun 14, 12:03 pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jun 14, 10:51 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

8

interesting calculator he-

http://www.solaressence.co.uk/pv-pri...ff-payback-cal...

you can tweak all their assumptions and play around with it all (e.g.
correct their 80% panel efficiency after 30 years "assumption"), lower
their 9% p.a. elec. inflation figure

in fact just lowering that to 4.5% (say, still 1% above their RPI
figure) reduced the overall benefit to 5.9% AER over 25years on a 4kw
system - also I can't see any allowances in there for new inverters
(£???), cleaning, insurance, repairs, accidents and other risks on the
"purchase"...

mmmm anyone care to comment?

Jim K

It's all very well saying you will get x% return for 25 years, but do
you get your capital back at the end? No.

You get an income for 25 years equal to about 2.5 times your initial
investment.
You may get additional income at a lower rate after 25 years.

Yebbut.

UK inflation is currently an annual 4.5%. There have been times over the
last 40 years when it has been much higher. The currency has devalued by
20% over the last two years.

This is the reverse of how inflation benefits home buyers with a long
mortgage: you are being repaid in currency with a much lower purchasing
power.

regards
--
Tim Lamb

In message , Mark
writes
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:23:54 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
wrote:

On Jun 13, 12:23*pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:32 am, John Rumm wrote:

On 13/06/2011 09:59, RobertL wrote:

On Jun 13, 9:15 am, Jim *wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

He pays, say, 12,000 for installation and will never see that money
again. He can't 'back out' and get his money back. *It will be 10
years or so before he starts to see any net positive result from his
investment. *After 25 years the income stops.

Nobody would buy an investment bond like that.

Due to the distortion of the market by the subsidies that we are all
paying owners of these systems, he will yield a return approaching 10% a
year. Compared to the rates available elsewhere, that's currently quite
a good deal.

Do a quick spreadsheet of 12K compounded at 5% and compare it to the
typical FiT income. Even ignoring the offset of some electricity not
purchased the numbers can look attractive.

So looked at in hard financial terms, it makes sense if you have the
capital sat there doing nothing and no immediate use for it. (obviously
ignoring all the valid arguments over the environmental
pointlessness of it)

ah curses - he may have a point!?

what is typical FiT over say 10years

What is the typical tax rate going to be in 10 years time? The
government could change the scheme on a whim.

And the more popular the scheme is the more likely they will be to
change it.
Precisely what they did with LPG conversions on cars.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...

8

It's all very well saying you will get x% return for 25 years, but do
you get your capital back at the end? No.

You get an income for 25 years equal to about 2.5 times your initial
investment.

The figure of £12k has been bandied around I believe. So £30k (2.5
times) over 25 years.

Stick the £12000 in a high interest account at 4% compound would give
you £32k.

Now try the same thing with an income from your £12k..

Say £1000pa like you get with the PV.

year
1 £12,000.00
2 £11,480.00
3 £10,939.20
4 £9,376.77
5 £7,751.84
6 £6,061.91
7 £4,304.39
8 £2,476.56
9 £575.63

Looks like you run out of capital pretty soon and you don't have a PV array
still delivering a few hundred pounds a year.

PS the PV income is also tax free.

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

8

What is the typical tax rate going to be in 10 years time? The
government could change the scheme on a whim.

And the more popular the scheme is the more likely they will be to
change it.
Precisely what they did with LPG conversions on cars.

Who had a 25 year contract to supply cheap LPG?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...

8

It's all very well saying you will get x% return for 25 years, but do
you get your capital back at the end? No.

You get an income for 25 years equal to about 2.5 times your initial
investment.

The figure of £12k has been bandied around I believe. So £30k (2.5
times) over 25 years.

Stick the £12000 in a high interest account at 4% compound would give
you £32k.

Now try the same thing with an income from your £12k..

Say £1000pa like you get with the PV.

year

Oops, pasted the wrong bit

Lets try again

1 £12,000.00
2 £11,480.00
3 £10,939.20
4 £10,376.77
5 £9,791.84
6 £9,183.51
7 £8,550.85
8 £7,892.89
9 £7,208.60
10 £6,496.95
11 £5,756.82
12 £4,987.10
13 £4,186.58
14 £3,354.04
15 £2,488.21
16 £1,587.73
17 £651.24

On Jun 14, 2:27*pm, "Man at B&Q" wrote:
On Jun 14, 1:53*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:





"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...

On Jun 14, 12:03 pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jun 14, 10:51 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

8

interesting calculator he-

http://www.solaressence.co.uk/pv-pri...ff-payback-cal....

you can tweak all their assumptions and play around with it all (e.g..
correct their 80% panel efficiency after 30 years "assumption"), lower
their 9% p.a. elec. inflation figure

in fact just lowering that to 4.5% (say, still 1% above their RPI
figure) reduced the overall benefit to 5.9% AER over 25years on a 4kw
system - also I can't see any allowances in there for new inverters
(£???), cleaning, insurance, repairs, accidents and other risks on the
"purchase"...

mmmm anyone care to comment?

Jim K

It's all very well saying you will get x% return for 25 years, but do
you get your capital back at the end? No.

You get an income for 25 years equal to about 2.5 times your initial
investment.

The figure of £12k has been bandied around I believe. So £30k (2.5
times) over 25 years.

Stick the £12000 in a high interest account at 4% compound would give
you £32k.

MBQ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tell me where this 4% account is? At the moment4% won't even beat
inflation.

On Jun 14, 4:34*pm, Mark
wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:23:54 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"





wrote:
On Jun 13, 12:23*pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:32 am, John Rumm wrote:

On 13/06/2011 09:59, RobertL wrote:

On Jun 13, 9:15 am, Jim *wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

He pays, say, 12,000 for installation and will never see that money
again. He can't 'back out' and get his money back. *It will be 10
years or so before he starts to see any net positive result from his
investment. *After 25 years the income stops.

Nobody would buy an investment bond like that.

Due to the distortion of the market by the subsidies that we are all
paying owners of these systems, he will yield a return approaching 10% a
year. Compared to the rates available elsewhere, that's currently quite
a good deal.

Do a quick spreadsheet of 12K compounded at 5% and compare it to the
typical FiT income. Even ignoring the offset of some electricity not
purchased the numbers can look attractive.

So looked at in hard financial terms, it makes sense if you have the
capital sat there doing nothing and no immediate use for it. (obviously
ignoring all the valid arguments over the environmental pointlessness of it)

ah curses - he may have a point!?

what is typical FiT over say 10years

What is the typical tax rate going to be in 10 years time? The
government could change the scheme on a whim.

And the more popular the scheme is the more likely they will be to
change it.
--
(\__/) *M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. *If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All the more reason to get in now. They are popping up all over the
place where I live. Apparently 78Mw of PV has been installed so far.

On Jun 14, 7:30*pm, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , "dennis@home"
writes







"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Jun 14, 12:03 pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jun 14, 10:51 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

8

interesting calculator he-

http://www.solaressence.co.uk/pv-pri...ff-payback-cal....

you can tweak all their assumptions and play around with it all (e.g.
correct their 80% panel efficiency after 30 years "assumption"), lower
their 9% p.a. elec. inflation figure

in fact just lowering that to 4.5% (say, still 1% above their RPI
figure) reduced the overall benefit to 5.9% AER over 25years on a 4kw
system - also I can't see any allowances in there for new inverters
(£???), cleaning, insurance, repairs, accidents and other risks on the
"purchase"...

mmmm anyone care to comment?

Jim K

It's all very well saying you will get x% return for 25 years, but do
you get your capital back at the end? No.

You get an income for 25 years equal to about 2.5 times your initial
investment.
You may get additional income at a lower rate after 25 years.

Yebbut.

UK inflation is currently an annual 4.5%. There have been times over the
last 40 years when it has been much higher. The currency has devalued by
20% over the last two years.

This is the reverse of how inflation benefits home buyers with a long
mortgage: you are being repaid in currency with a much lower purchasing
power.

regards
--
Tim Lamb- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Inflation linked.

On Jun 14, 11:46*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...

8

It's all very well saying you will get x% return for 25 years, but do
you get your capital back at the end? No.

You get an income for 25 years equal to about 2.5 times your initial
investment.

The figure of 12k has been bandied around I believe. So 30k (2.5
times) over 25 years.

Stick the 12000 in a high interest account at 4% compound would give
you 32k.

Now try the same thing with an income from your 12k..

Say 1000pa like you get with the PV.

year
1 * * * 12,000.00
2 * * * 11,480.00
3 * * * 10,939.20
4 * * * 9,376.77
5 * * * 7,751.84
6 * * * 6,061.91
7 * * * 4,304.39
8 * * * 2,476.56
9 * * * 575.63

Looks like you run out of capital pretty soon and you don't have a PV array
still delivering a few hundred pounds a year.

PS the PV income is also tax free.

And the income is inflation linked.

On Jun 15, 12:01*am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message

...







"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...

8

It's all very well saying you will get x% return for 25 years, but do
you get your capital back at the end? No.

You get an income for 25 years equal to about 2.5 times your initial
investment.

The figure of 12k has been bandied around I believe. So 30k (2.5
times) over 25 years.

Stick the 12000 in a high interest account at 4% compound would give
you 32k.

Now try the same thing with an income from your 12k..

Say 1000pa like you get with the PV.

year

Oops, pasted the wrong bit

Lets try again

1 * * * 12,000.00
2 * * * 11,480.00
3 * * * 10,939.20
4 * * * 10,376.77
5 * * * 9,791.84
6 * * * 9,183.51
7 * * * 8,550.85
8 * * * 7,892.89
9 * * * 7,208.60
10 * * * 6,496.95
11 * * * 5,756.82
12 * * * 4,987.10
13 * * * 4,186.58
14 * * * 3,354.04
15 * * * 2,488.21
16 * * * 1,587.73
17 * * * 651.24- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The main point is your capital may be reduced in £ terms but your
income has gone up in line with inflation. (Income is inflation
linked)
So I may be getting a return of £10,000 /year on something worth
nominally £651 in 25 years.
It's also worth more as it's tax free.
I think I'll have my money back in five years.

So. where would you be with the money if left in the bank/BS for 25
years.?Even invested?
The economy is all bollixed up. I don't believe we've seen the worst
yet even.

On Jun 14, 12:14*pm, "Man at B&Q" wrote:
On Jun 13, 9:50*am, Rob wrote:

On 13-06-2011 09:15, Jim K wrote: arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K

Because they are typically about 19% efficent. There are developments in
progress which will greatly increase the efficency thus making them
economically viable. They will also get cheaper. I'd wait about 5 years
and then get some. Whilst waiting get a solar thermal system installed.

Only getting the cost down due to economy of scale, and rising prices
for the alternatives (oil, etc) will ever make solar PV attractive on
purely cost terms. There are fundamental limits to efficiency (i.e.
nowhere near 100%) which are already being approached.

Personally I would like to fit solar PV so as to be "off grid" and
have control over my own supply but only if the price comes down and
there's a viable storage mechanism to even out the highs and lows of
generation.

MBQ

The normal installation you buy is run in parallel with the grid.
Indeed it has an "anti islanding" capability means it shuts down if
the grid goes off for any reason.
The panels probably will get more efficient in the future but how long
do you wait?

How do you think fossil fuels are going to go pricewise? Double in ten
years? More?

And they've shut down our only shale gas well at Blackpool due to it
causing earthquakes. OOO! There's a nuclear plant just up the road.

On Jun 13, 9:40*pm, hugh ] wrote:
In message
,
harry writes



On Jun 13, 9:15*am, Jim K wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

Cheers
Jim K

I have a PVarray myself. Your arsehole relative is on a winner.
The anticipated return on my system is11% on capital laid out,
inflation linked, tax free for 25 years.

The only down sides are, is the technology reliable? and you can't get
your money back once you've spent it.
Oh and hard to take with you if you move house.
So in fact, the prick is you.

Do you think it will increase the selling price of your house if and
when you move?
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have looked into this.
Buyer's views at the moment are sharply polarised.
However the view is that, in the future, PV panels will be viewed as a
very desireable asset on a house.
BTW, they don't have to be on the roof. Ground arrays are available.
You might not want to put one on the front elevation of your chocolate
box cottage but the garage/outbuilding roof might be suitable.

If your retired, you have the best opportunity to save electricity in
the middle of the day. (You are paid for it whether you use it
yourself or not).

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:30:34 +0100, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Jun 14, 12:03 pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jun 14, 10:51 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

8

interesting calculator he-

http://www.solaressence.co.uk/pv-pri...ff-payback-cal...

you can tweak all their assumptions and play around with it all (e.g.
correct their 80% panel efficiency after 30 years "assumption"), lower
their 9% p.a. elec. inflation figure

in fact just lowering that to 4.5% (say, still 1% above their RPI
figure) reduced the overall benefit to 5.9% AER over 25years on a 4kw
system - also I can't see any allowances in there for new inverters
(£???), cleaning, insurance, repairs, accidents and other risks on the
"purchase"...

mmmm anyone care to comment?

Jim K

It's all very well saying you will get x% return for 25 years, but do
you get your capital back at the end? No.

You get an income for 25 years equal to about 2.5 times your initial
investment.
You may get additional income at a lower rate after 25 years.

Yebbut.

UK inflation is currently an annual 4.5%. There have been times over the
last 40 years when it has been much higher. The currency has devalued by
20% over the last two years.

Only if you believe the official figures. I have calculated the
difference between what I buy now and what it cost a year ago. It's
gone up a lot more than 4.5%

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:19:12 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Jun 14, 4:34*pm, Mark
wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:23:54 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"





wrote:
On Jun 13, 12:23*pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:32 am, John Rumm wrote:

On 13/06/2011 09:59, RobertL wrote:

On Jun 13, 9:15 am, Jim *wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

He pays, say, 12,000 for installation and will never see that money
again. He can't 'back out' and get his money back. *It will be 10
years or so before he starts to see any net positive result from his
investment. *After 25 years the income stops.

Nobody would buy an investment bond like that.

Due to the distortion of the market by the subsidies that we are all
paying owners of these systems, he will yield a return approaching 10% a
year. Compared to the rates available elsewhere, that's currently quite
a good deal.

Do a quick spreadsheet of 12K compounded at 5% and compare it to the
typical FiT income. Even ignoring the offset of some electricity not
purchased the numbers can look attractive.

So looked at in hard financial terms, it makes sense if you have the
capital sat there doing nothing and no immediate use for it. (obviously
ignoring all the valid arguments over the environmental pointlessness of it)

ah curses - he may have a point!?

what is typical FiT over say 10years

What is the typical tax rate going to be in 10 years time? The
government could change the scheme on a whim.

And the more popular the scheme is the more likely they will be to
change it.

All the more reason to get in now.

Unless they change the rules retrospectively.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

Mark wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:30:34 +0100, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , "dennis@home"
writes

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Jun 14, 12:03 pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jun 14, 10:51 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
8

interesting calculator he-

http://www.solaressence.co.uk/pv-pri...ff-payback-cal...

you can tweak all their assumptions and play around with it all (e.g.
correct their 80% panel efficiency after 30 years "assumption"), lower
their 9% p.a. elec. inflation figure

in fact just lowering that to 4.5% (say, still 1% above their RPI
figure) reduced the overall benefit to 5.9% AER over 25years on a 4kw
system - also I can't see any allowances in there for new inverters
(£???), cleaning, insurance, repairs, accidents and other risks on the
"purchase"...

mmmm anyone care to comment?

Jim K
It's all very well saying you will get x% return for 25 years, but do
you get your capital back at the end? No.
You get an income for 25 years equal to about 2.5 times your initial
investment.
You may get additional income at a lower rate after 25 years.
Yebbut.

UK inflation is currently an annual 4.5%. There have been times over the
last 40 years when it has been much higher. The currency has devalued by
20% over the last two years.

Only if you believe the official figures. I have calculated the
difference between what I buy now and what it cost a year ago. It's
gone up a lot more than 4.5%

My biggest bills (Petrol and power) have gone up by a *lot* more than
4.5%. A bottle of Coke is about 75% more than it was a year ago, and
bread's up by 10% in my corner shop.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:30:34 +0100, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , "dennis@home"
writes

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...

On Jun 14, 12:03 pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jun 14, 10:51 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
8

interesting calculator he-

http://www.solaressence.co.uk/pv-pri...ff-payback-cal...


you can tweak all their assumptions and play around with it all (e.g.
correct their 80% panel efficiency after 30 years "assumption"),
lower
their 9% p.a. elec. inflation figure

in fact just lowering that to 4.5% (say, still 1% above their RPI
figure) reduced the overall benefit to 5.9% AER over 25years on a 4kw
system - also I can't see any allowances in there for new inverters
(£???), cleaning, insurance, repairs, accidents and other risks on
the
"purchase"...

mmmm anyone care to comment?

Jim K
It's all very well saying you will get x% return for 25 years, but do
you get your capital back at the end? No.
You get an income for 25 years equal to about 2.5 times your initial
investment.
You may get additional income at a lower rate after 25 years.
Yebbut.

UK inflation is currently an annual 4.5%. There have been times over
the last 40 years when it has been much higher. The currency has
devalued by 20% over the last two years.

Only if you believe the official figures. I have calculated the
difference between what I buy now and what it cost a year ago. It's
gone up a lot more than 4.5%

My biggest bills (Petrol and power) have gone up by a *lot* more than
4.5%. A bottle of Coke is about 75% more than it was a year ago, and
bread's up by 10% in my corner shop.

Point made in todays FT.

Mortgages and computers cheap, fuel and food very expensive. Guess which
sectors of society suffer most under that sort of differential?

you got it, those on low incomes and retired.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:14:41 +0100, Mark wrote:

UK inflation is currently an annual 4.5%.

Only if you believe the official figures. I have calculated the
difference between what I buy now and what it cost a year ago. It's
gone up a lot more than 4.5%

The CPI is 4.5% but the RPI is 5.2% and the RPIX 5.3%.

I'm not sure what is different between the "baskets" of each index.

--
Cheers
Dave.