Anyone read this over the weekend?

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/money/Consumer/article1260843.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_05_18

Not sure I follow you there, but not an Express reader.
Just highlighting issues that people have had and how systems have been oversold.
We discussed this happening a couple of years ago, wonder what has happened to Gavin_A

Don't think that REA was involved 30 years ago, and not every supplier was REA'd before the FITs, so hard to tell the true numbers as a fraction of installs.
The financial side is interesting, 2 years ago some installers were claiming 5 to 6 year payback, seems that on average that is not happening. Though I have always questioned the payback anyway.
Also the bit about devaluing property, though has there ever been a product that genuinely enhances the value of a house. Maybe gas heating

No.1 is as shevek says.
No.2 complaints "could climb even higher given the sharp drop in payments paid to households", as if extg FITs customers were seeing their payments cut
The rest - not a subscriber so can't read, but why should I?

Having got a BSc in Renewable Energy/Environmental Science I am only too aware of the technical limitations of the two major ones, wind and solar.

Was it ever really right to pay people to generate electricity at home knowing that they could, if they wished, use all of it for themselves, this is akin to buying 'a government sanctioned car', getting your tank filled for free and then demanding that everyone else in the station gives you cash as well.
The real problem was creating a business model that relied on subsidies to each individual that signed up to the scheme. When I was working for a dodgy PV installer existing customers used to call saying that they felt aggrieved that they paid almost twice as much for their systems than later ones and felt entitled to 'better service' when things went wrong, the higher FIT payment was not mentioned.
It really comes down to how individuals spend their money and if they think they are getting value from it, and value is very subjective.
I do think this article highlighted that it was never a good idea, maybe it should have come out earlier.
I wonder if 5 years ago I had said that you can have a system that will generate 4 MWh/year for £6000 or you can have an identical system for £8000 and I will give you back £600 a year for the next 20 years.
Pre FITs showed the real costs of systems more than reduced FITs.
A similar article about the pitfalls of the GD is due I think.

Posted By: YouGen-CathySo, it looks as though they've googled all the negative things they can find about solar and lumped them together.

Probably right and you very rarely hear from satisfied customers.
Does not change the fact that there have been a lot of bad installs, a lot of companies going bust, people loose what they have paid for the system, unlike cash savings.
Maybe it is worth writing a response to it for next weeks letter page. I am sure that someone can find a system somewhere that over produces, cost less and has never gone wrong.

I think the mortgage issue is more to do with the survey than the devalue.
Has REA/RECC published figures on how much and how many systems they have paid out on?

"Probably right and you very rarely hear from satisfied customers." All my PV jobs have been through referrals (as with most my work) generally that's how customers show their happy with your work , and by paying you of course :)

I agree though there've been some right dodgy installs and practices going on in the previous gold rush , most of which REA etc. have very little ability to do anything about.
but if it's only 1,500 odd complaint for 300,000 installs , then potentially better than most other commercial activitites

It wouldn't fit the Times' mindset but there is scope for a proper mainstream article about the state of PV.
The number of times I hear 'I'd have loved solar PV but I've missed the boat'... Each drop in tariff makes the headlines and the subsequent drop in prices is rarely reported.

The main change seems to be that you really need to fill a good sized roof to get a decent payback so it seems irritating that examples normally quote the figures for a ~2.5kWp system.

Another often repeated misnomer is that you need a south facing roof when anything between east and west is almost as good (providing you can get lots up there).

Posted By: Fred56If we were to look at the family and business connections of the cabinet I'm sure the influences would be obvious

That couldn't be *this* cabinet, and I think you may be being a little too cynical. I don't think they aimed to wreck it, even then.

FITs came in in early 2010, so that makes it a decision by Energy Minister Ed Milliband:

Feed-in tariffs in the United Kingdom were first announced in October 2008 by the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband, who announced that Britain would implement a scheme by 2010, in addition to its current renewable energy quota scheme (ROCS). In July 2009, he presented details of the scheme, which began in early April 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariff#United_Kingdom

Ferdinand

If the tax on Chinese made modules comes in, will they increase the FITs again.

My in-laws paid £14k for a 4kw array and just beat the deadline for initial FIT reduction. They used a local installer who was great and were lucky to have a 45degree south facing roof slope. They were advised a likely 10-12yr payback which they were happy with. Their installation and subsequent performance has delighted them (£1880 return in year 1 IIRRC) so there are some happy customers out there but I think it depends entirely on the installer chosen and the sales patter received

Not being directly involved on a day to day basis I was amazed when i sought a quote for our current build which came in around £5.5k for the same size system. Is this simply that the technology has matured and production costs reduced or are the install costs effectively linked to whatever FIT rate is current. I understand that there is further tarriff reduction in July so should I be waiting for a likely install cost reduction to follow immediately thereafter?

Posted By: hairydudeIs this simply that the technology has matured and production costs reduced or are the install costs effectively linked to whatever FIT rate is current.

Dunno, but I think a bit of both. Retail prices of panels alone have definitely dropped. I imagine there's been some improvement in the manufacturing but i think the main cause is simply the glut on the market caused by cuts in the FIT rates throughout Europe and particularly in Germany. At the same time, installers must be a lot more squeezed on installation costs with the less-than-completely-frenetic PV market.

Overall, I think this behaviour of ramping the FITs rate up then pulling the rug out from under the market on the part of the governments is completely reprehensible. To then turn round to the Chinese manufacturers who are now basically trying to be the last ones standing as the market contracts and accuse them of dumping just adds both insult and injury to injury. OTOH, as Steamy would probably say, maybe they (the various PV manufacturers) were mugs to think western governments would take other than a very short-sighted view on the matter.

Another fag-packet calculation: ignoring MCS and FITs you could probably do a DIY install for around £1000/kW (¹), particularly on a new build where you can reclaim the VAT and you have roof access sorted, electricians in, etc, anyway. That kW would likely produce about 800 kWh/year. If, as is not usually the case, you could make good use of all of that and your electricity costs £0.12/kWh that would save you £96/year giving break-even in 10.5 years with no dependence on the whims of future governments.

¹ Say £0.55/W for the panels, £0.35/W for the inverter and £0.10/W for mounting rails, cables, isolators, RCDs, etc.

I fear that the supply cost of a 4kW array was never more than about £7.5k so there probably is a pretty close correlation bewteen the FIT value and commercial cost of supply and installation of small systems. The present FIT of less than 10p/kWh is still sufficient to allow industrial installations such as the 16,000 panels going into a farm near us.

Never mind the sun setting on the solar regime, the wind is dropping on wind power. The campaign by the Telegraph papers hsa reached a zenith today with a headline stating that wind power has failed as it is costing £100k per person to subsidise the wind jobs. There is no mention anywhere in the front page article that this industry produces electricity, will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and allow future generations to use gas and oil in small mobile engines rather than large static generation plants. Even thought about writing to the paper but not worth the effort so this morning is the last time I will but a Sunday Telegraph.

"90% of my sayings about homeopathy are rubbish.
Therefore homeopathy is rubbish."

I suppose that people in Shrewsbury and Sweden are entitled to jobs just as much as 'locals'.
We should be questioning why we are not using 'locals' and seeing if we can do anything about it.