Author Topic: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels  (Read 8875 times)

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #25 on: 02 March, 2017, 06:26:07 pm »
You could set them in a parabola to concentrate the suns rays, so you can get a nice tan or cook chicken, if chicken's your thing.

Or use it as a DETH-ray to repel intruders.
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

Aunt Maud

  • Le Flâneur.
Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #26 on: 02 March, 2017, 06:52:41 pm »
I want one of those.

Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #27 on: 02 March, 2017, 06:58:41 pm »
Rather than look at how long it takes to recover the initial  cost you look at them as an investment. If they cost  £5800  and you get 4% back pa this is a better investment than the poor return you money is getting sat in the bank at the moment 

Wowbagger

  • Sylph
    • Musings of a Gentleman Cyclist
Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #28 on: 02 March, 2017, 07:03:50 pm »
Rather than look at how long it takes to recover the initial  cost you look at them as an investment. If they cost  £5800  and you get 4% back pa this is a better investment than the poor return you money is getting sat in the bank at the moment

Yes, but I still have that money. I wouldn't if I bunged it all at a load of solar panels of dubious worth.

My son has looked into ground source heat pumps. His back garden is a lot bigger than mine, but still not big enough. His contractor reckons you need 50 metres for the trench. The same contractor said that at the moment solar panels aren't worth bothering with. He is, however, looking into a biomass boiler to replace the decrepit old oil job that came with the house (they have only been in since December).
Bach without a doubt.

Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #29 on: 02 March, 2017, 07:09:16 pm »
There is also the consideration of where the price of electricity is going over the next 20 years.   MayNot has guaranteed teh Chinese a minimum strike price considerably higher than the current strike price for electricity generation nearly 3x iirc.   i am sure that this price will not be fixed but will rise with inflation.   Therefore, as I see it, the entire industry will be forced to raise their prices to somewhere near this point rubbing their hands together with glee as i understand that you cannot sell your electricity outside of a certain percentage of market price.   

If that makes sense, I estimate that electricity will at least double in price in real terms in good time for the next nuclear holocaust, er I mean station to go online.

This is my theory and part of my reasoning that a home storage battery will become cost effective during it's lifetime.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #30 on: 02 March, 2017, 07:17:42 pm »
You could set them in a parabola to concentrate the suns rays, so you can get a nice tan or cook chicken, if chicken's your thing.

Or use it as a DETH-ray to repel intruders.

Didn't some Famous Architect do this on Fenchurch Street?

Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #31 on: 02 March, 2017, 07:42:41 pm »

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #32 on: 02 March, 2017, 07:51:59 pm »
Still not sure how they were planning to get the TV Licencing goons to stand in the right place, though.
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #33 on: 02 March, 2017, 07:54:33 pm »
That would have been easy.   Just tell them that from this spot you can see all the television sets in the block when they are turned on.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #34 on: 02 March, 2017, 07:58:01 pm »
Walkie Talkie

But, as I have posted before, this was not Viñoly's first SOLAR DETH creation; he previously fried holidaymakers in Panama...

Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #35 on: 02 March, 2017, 08:24:17 pm »
Harking back to an earlier digression—what thickness of insulated plasterboard have people fitted?

Wowbagger

  • Sylph
    • Musings of a Gentleman Cyclist
Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #36 on: 02 March, 2017, 10:09:07 pm »
Harking back to an earlier digression—what thickness of insulated plasterboard have people fitted?

I think it was 1cm.
Bach without a doubt.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #37 on: 02 March, 2017, 10:16:43 pm »
Apart from the tariff is linked to manufacturing price (as a barrier to buying), is there not the additional issue that if everyone fitted these things there would be far less need for a national generating capacity infrastructure, thus leaving us at the mercy of the Russians when the sun didn't shine?
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

caerau

  • SR x 3 - PBP fail but 1090 km - hey - not too bad
Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #38 on: 02 March, 2017, 10:43:45 pm »
Don't think so - you need to also figure in how much coal/gas is needed to buiild them, extract the raw materials and.... how long do they actually last?  Will they even last the 20 odd years needed before you have to replace them at similar (adjusted for inflation) cost?
It's a reverse Elvis thing.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #39 on: 02 March, 2017, 11:05:01 pm »
So we are all doomed!
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

Aunt Maud

  • Le Flâneur.
Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #40 on: 03 March, 2017, 06:49:53 am »
If you don't own sufficient coppiced woodland to keep you warm, yes.

Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #41 on: 03 March, 2017, 07:20:12 am »
Harking back to an earlier digression—what thickness of insulated plasterboard have people fitted?

I think it was 1cm.

We went for 45mm.

caerau

  • SR x 3 - PBP fail but 1090 km - hey - not too bad
Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #42 on: 03 March, 2017, 07:57:26 am »
So we are all doomed!


Not with the feed-in-tariff.  :-D
It's a reverse Elvis thing.

Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #43 on: 03 March, 2017, 08:15:10 am »
Rather than look at how long it takes to recover the initial  cost you look at them as an investment. If they cost  £5800  and you get 4% back pa this is a better investment than the poor return you money is getting sat in the bank at the moment

But remember to factor in depreciation and maintenance of the panels and associated equipment.
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #44 on: 03 March, 2017, 08:17:45 am »
Apart from the tariff is linked to manufacturing price (as a barrier to buying), is there not the additional issue that if everyone fitted these things there would be far less need for a national generating capacity infrastructure, thus leaving us at the mercy of the Russians when the sun didn't shine?

There is the fact that the infrastructure can only cope with a certain amount of back-feed from PV installations, and in some areas permissions are being refused on that basis.
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

Wombat

  • Is it supposed to hurt this much?
Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #45 on: 03 March, 2017, 10:24:12 am »
I think that last issue is more about large scale PV farms, rather than domestic scale ones.  With the drastic reduction in feed-in tariff these days, the focus is more on generating for your own use, rather than what you can get for generating it and selling it.  Proposed future Wombat burrows generally have enough roof space for a 4kWp system, which typically generates about twice what I currently use a year in my gas heated house.  However, I would have to adjust my times of usage to more closely match the generating times, and as I'll be retired, I'll have more freedom to do that.  As I'm likely to be moving to an area off the gas grid, I have to think VERY seriously about how I'm going to heat it.  I struggle to believe how stupid the current owners of places I'm looking at must be, not bothering to properly insulate their 1970's bungalows, but installing big LPG fired heating systems, and in one case, a bungalow had an LPG boiler, an LPG hob, and an LPG Aga, as well, but only had 100mm of loft insulation, hadn't bothered to get the cavity walls filled, and had retroffited new single glazed timber windows at some point since it was built.  It was a lovely home, but instantly needed at least £20k spent on it to make it affordable to live in.   Why do people deliberately throw their money away?
Wombat

Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #46 on: 03 March, 2017, 11:25:42 am »
Walkie Talkie

When I saw the original picture of that building my first thought was to wonder where the focus point(s) would be.
“There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe something that has clearly happened.”
― Douglas Adams

Zipperhead

  • The cyclist formerly known as Big Helga
Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #47 on: 03 March, 2017, 02:21:26 pm »
The architect seemed to have also failed to consider the impact that it would have on winds at ground level. If you try and walk past the sides of it on a windy day you're likely to do a Mary Poppins - without the aid of an umbrella to cushion the landing.
Won't somebody think of the hamsters!

Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #48 on: 03 March, 2017, 02:58:12 pm »
The architect seemed to have also failed to consider the impact that it would have on winds at ground level. If you try and walk past the sides of it on a windy day you're likely to do a Mary Poppins - without the aid of an umbrella to cushion the landing.

They've learned nothing from the Whitgift Centre then  :D
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

Wowbagger

  • Sylph
    • Musings of a Gentleman Cyclist
Re: The cost-effectiveness of solar panels
« Reply #49 on: 03 March, 2017, 03:07:09 pm »
Alexander House, Southend, was like that. I remember walking round the SW corner one very windy day and being all but lifted off my feet. I managed to keep my balance, but for 4 or 5 steps I was leaning back into the wind and almost dancing along on points. Mind you, I didn't weigh much in those days, only about 16 stone.
Bach without a doubt.