Solar Panel Schemes

They seem too good to be true, so naturally I am skeptical.

As I understand it you get paid to produce power, you get paid if you manage to send any to the grid. So is it a matter or predicting how long you will be in the property, in other words, will you pay off the cost of the panels?

Assuming you are talking about photo voltaic (PV) panels?

They convert solar energy into DC electrical energy. A seperate invertor converts the DC to AC. The AC (230VAC) is used to power your appliances/lights etc. Some or all of it can be sold back to the grid.

Yes you do need to consider all factors including how long it will take to recover your investment.


Which bit are you skeptical about?

Thanks.

Yes, I know how they work - it just seems too good to be true that the power generating companies would pay you for not only giving them what you dont use but also for what you do.

Several sites I have seen say you'll earn £1000 a year (in payments and savings), so if you stay in the house longer than 12 years (a typical investment seems to be 12 grand from what I have read) you're quids in. Of course, if you move, the next occupiers get all the benefit with none of the spends.

Is that it, in a nutshell?

The 'Feed in Tariff' is hugely subsidised by the government, supposedly for 20 yrs (IIRC) but that remains to be seen . . . do a search on here for feed in tariff I think it has been discussed before.

WabbitPoo said:

They seem too good to be true, so naturally I am skeptical.

Click to expand...

Are you naturally callous and quite happy to see people poorer/older/more infirm than you die in order that you can be paid to play around with PV panels?

Because that's what the FIT schemes really mean.

Solar PV in these latitudes is nonsensical, we simply do not get enough sunlight, particularly at the times of year when electricity is most needed - domestic scale systems just will not produce meaningful amounts of electricity.

So where does the money come from to bribe people to install the things by having the generating companies pay significantly over the odds for a quantity of power they'll never get, and therefore hugely over the odds for the amount they'll actually get? From their own pockets, and they get all their money from their customers.

So electricity bills will go up in order to pay people to install PV systems which will do SFA to reduce our use of fossil fuels.

Given that, as you know full well, old/poor people already die each winter because they can't afford fuel bills, do you think that problem will get better or worse as prices rise?

The whole thing is an outrageous scam - the government has invented a figure for the amount of electricity that will be generated, based on the exaggerated claims of makers who are little better than charlatans, so that they can say they've met some of their carbon reduction targets when in reality they will have done nothing of the sort, and to encourage people to back up their pretence they have created a perverse form of redistribution of wealth from the poorest members of society to the middle classes to spend on a pointless hobby.

So, ask yourself why you want to install PV.

Will it improve the appearance of your home? No.

Will it have environmental benefits? No.

Will it enrich you personally? Quite possibly, but that leads back to my opening question.

skenk said:

The 'Feed in Tariff' is hugely subsidised by the government

Click to expand...

It's not subsidised by the government at all - it's subsidised by you, me, the little old lady opposite...

The politics to one side for a moment (which I don't pretend to understand) The quantum efficiency of PV panels are improving steadily. The more people that invest in them should ultimately bring the prices down over time. Utilising the power of the sun instead of paying high utilities bills + VAT sounds like a good idea to me.

Couple that with the ever developing energy savings of energy efficient lighting and smart power devices seems to be to be the right direction.

Selling power back to the grid! Don't know about that but having to buy less from the grid would make me happy.

As BAS says the feed-in tariffs are paid by the supply companies, not the government, and therefore it means anyone not on the FIT pays a fraction extra to cover the cost. But if we weren't paying it as FIT we'd be paying it for some other reason. The point of the FITs is that the governemtn signed up the power generators to the Kyoto Protocol which committed them to generate a percentage of UK power by renewable means.

The only way the generators can hit that is by encouraging microgeneration (such as wind and PV) and buying the kilowatts from us. Given the amount of power generated on the Grid, the number of users, and the number of FIT customers, you'd be hard-pressed to identify how many fractions of pence the little old lady over the road is paying to subsidise your PV installation.

That situation may well change as microgeneration technologies increase and their take-up improves, but if these things didn't happen the generators would have to pay for renewables in other ways, and that would aslo add to everyone's bills. And if microgeneration doesn't get moving, there'll be nothing to take up the slack as the gas and oil imports slow down and get more expensive.

PJ

pjcomp said:

The point of the FITs is that the governemtn signed up the power generators to the Kyoto Protocol which committed them to generate a percentage of UK power by renewable means.

Click to expand...

But domestic solar PV systems won't be contributing to that. Except on paper, because of the assumed amount they generate. In reality they will be doing SFA to take up the slack as the gas and oil imports slow down and get more expensive.

Given the amount of power generated on the Grid, the number of users, and the number of FIT customers, you'd be hard-pressed to identify how many fractions of pence the little old lady over the road is paying to subsidise your PV installation.

Click to expand...

It's not zero or negative, and it is only going in one direction.

That situation may well change as microgeneration technologies increase and their take-up improves, but if these things didn't happen the generators would have to pay for renewables in other ways, and that would aslo add to everyone's bills.

Click to expand...

But the generators will tend to invest in things which actually generate electricity.

And if microgeneration doesn't get moving, there'll be nothing to take up the slack as the gas and oil imports slow down and get more expensive.

Click to expand...

Domestic scale solar PV at these latitudes and with our climate will not take up the slack.

pjcomp said:

As BAS says the feed-in tariffs are paid by the supply companies, not the government,

Click to expand...

In a way I wish they were a government expense. More chance of them being scrapped.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in Spain.

WabbitPoo said:

Several sites I have seen say you'll earn £1000 a year (in payments and savings), so if you stay in the house longer than 12 years (a typical investment seems to be 12 grand from what I have read) you're quids in.

Click to expand...

Even if those figures are correct, you are hardly 'quids in'.
After 12 years you have only recovered the initial outlay - so have made nothing at all, and due to inflation have actually lost a significant sum.

It's the equivalent of putting £12k in a cardboard box under the bed for 12 years.

Almost as bad as this nonsense. "Because she owns the seabed indeed" TTC is right - roll over again.

Queen's £38m a year offshore windfarm windfall - because she owns the seabed

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ndfall--owns-seabed.html#ixzz1DyhqCZhp[i][/i]

Sorry - it was onlyfitidealboilers not TTC - am getting the posts muddled.

EFLImpudence said:

Almost as bad as this nonsense. "Because she owns the seabed indeed" TTC is right - roll over again.

Queen's £38m a year offshore windfarm windfall - because she owns the seabed

Click to expand...

Even windfarms don't produce enough electricity to meet our increasing needs. One of the Scandinavian countries stopped all investment in wind farms as they realised they'd never recoup the initial costs against electricity produced. The only way forward is nuclear technology, but the green party's will complain about the building of nuclear generation stations.
Surely with diminishing oil reserves, in 50 or a 100 yrs there won't be any gas companies left. Just think of the cost of electricity if we keep investing in wind farm technology. It'll probably cost you a fiver to put the kettle on and a tenner to bake something in the oven.

WabbitPoo said:

Of course, if you move, the next occupiers get all the benefit with none of the spends.

Click to expand...

I heard yesterday that some mortgage lenders are not lending on properties with solar PV generators. Rumour that may be, but there is undoubtedly going to be an issue with moving home if there is a question of ownership, which there may be if you go down the 'free' installation route offered by the big players.