Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:15:14 -0700 (PDT), 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?


If he's got a round featureless head with a vent on top ...

He's a prick.

Derek G.

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:15:14 -0700 (PDT), 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?

Unfotunately if he's really only interested in the (skewed) economics
then anything related to total carbon, resources used or energy
positive over lifetime etc aren't going to make much difference.

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? (They've
already fiddled with them). Will the current premium over electricty
costs remain for that period or even as long as the payback time?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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.

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

On Jun 13, 9:36 am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:15:14 -0700 (PDT), 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?

Unfotunately if he's really only interested in the (skewed) economics
then anything related to total carbon, resources used or energy
positive over lifetime etc aren't going to make much difference.

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? ;)

(They've
already fiddled with them). Will the current premium over electricty
costs remain for that period or even as long as the payback time?

Jim K

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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.

any links for that stuff? TIA

Whilst waiting get a solar thermal system installed.

I don't think i get enough sun :(

Jim K

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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?


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.


Robert

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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.

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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.

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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.

if they get cheap the subsidies will be chopped

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

RobertL 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?


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.

Course they would. In fact councils bought em in droves.



Robert

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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

anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

There's no money in PV in the UK

The only money is in grant-farming the pokbarrelled FIT

As no doubt a rabid Daily Mail / Telegraph reader (most pricks are),
where does he stand on statist command-economy subsidies?

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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?

Is he paying for the installation or taking one of those silly finance
packages? If the latter then he's probably making his house unsaleable
since the new owner would have to sign up to the finance agreement. Would
you buy a house knowing that in addition to the mortgage you have to take
on someone else's debt?

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

On Jun 13, 10:43*am, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Jun 13, 9:15*am, Jim K wrote:

anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

There's no money in PV in the UK

The only money is in grant-farming the pokbarrelled FIT

As no doubt a rabid Daily Mail / Telegraph reader (most pricks are),
where does he stand on statist command-economy subsidies?

Hey ! I know the Daily Mail is a bit reactionary and over-eggs the
pudding, not really helping itself in the process, but it does
highlight some trends in society that need to be discussed.
Certain people try to discredit the Daily Mail by saying it takes a
few infrequent cases (behaviour or travellers / people on 32 grand
grants after having 10 children they cannot afford etc) and tries to
get people angry / bigoted.
BUT - the fact that some of the cases happen at all is the point.
Every time some social worker or "CEO" of a council says "this is only
an isolated incident", you know that it almost certainly is not.
Simon.

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

"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.

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

On 13/06/2011 11:18, sm_jamieson wrote:

Hey ! I know the Daily Mail is a bit reactionary and over-eggs the
pudding, not really helping itself in the process, but it does
highlight some trends in society that need to be discussed.

Oh yes, definitely.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ra-outing.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...gas-break.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...band-Phil.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...liam-polo.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...Abu-Dhabi.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...attle-out.html

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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.


Good point.

Robert

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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.

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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.

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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.
They have a ten year guarantee.

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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.

pub kicked you out again Harry?

Jim K

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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.

care to share your summs?
hic

Jim K

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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. Mine is for an annual generation of 3320 Kwh
(=£1746) . I have perfect site. You get one with the quotation.
Seem to be on line to exceed it so far. Sunny April helped of course.
Future income (£) depends on inflation

There is no maintenance.
My house insurers have made no addtional charge.

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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.
Seem to be on line to exceed it so far. Sunny April helped of course.
Future income (£) depends on inflation

There is no maintenance.
My house insurers have made no addtional charge.

mmm thanks-ish....

so
off top of my head so far:-
inverters?
cleaning?
wonky finance deal?
so is it really insured then? and for how much?

Jim K

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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.

are yours same though? er no

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??

tell us the summs plse....

Jim K

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

"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

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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....

links r you ;)

Jim K

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:28:46 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:

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.

pub kicked you out again Harry?

Naw, just remember Harry only sees the money side and not the whole
picture. I guess he has to justify the large capital outlay to
himself somehow.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

"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.
#

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:15:14 -0700 (PDT), 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?

Unfotunately if he's really only interested in the (skewed) economics
then anything related to total carbon, resources used or energy
positive over lifetime etc aren't going to make much difference.

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? (They've
already fiddled with them). Will the current premium over electricty
costs remain for that period or even as long as the payback time?


When you look at what they've done to pension funds and rules over the
same time scale I wouldn't trust them for a second.
--
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

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

In message
, Jim
K writes
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.

any links for that stuff? TIA

Whilst waiting get a solar thermal system installed.

I don't think i get enough sun :(

Jim K
I read somewhere that for decent performance they need to be orientated
between SE and SW. My roof faces due west.
--
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

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

In message , Clive
George writes
On 13/06/2011 11:18, sm_jamieson wrote:

Hey ! I know the Daily Mail is a bit reactionary and over-eggs the
pudding, not really helping itself in the process, but it does
highlight some trends in society that need to be discussed.

Oh yes, definitely.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...Cambridge-Kate
-Middleton-gives-favourite-coat-extra-outing.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...tine-Bleakley-
Frank-Lampard-matching-muscles-enjoy-romantic-Vegas-break.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...ss-addict-Juli
e-Neville-displays-super-slim-bikini-body-holiday-husband-Phil.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...nk-Young-Princ
e-shows-newly-toned-torso-takes-William-polo.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...Toni-Terry-con
tinue-loved-displays-holiday-Abu-Dhabi.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...rtime-Ball-201
1-Nicole-Scherzinger-Jennifer-Lopez-battle-out.html
You could replace dailymail with sun/miror/star and get the seam sort of
thing or worse.
--
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

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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?

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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.

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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...r-results.html

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

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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? No, thought not.

MBQ

Solar PV - reasons why not in a nutshell please
 

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