Solar Power for the home
Posted by: JamieWednesday on 21 May 2012
I had another 'phone call from the sunshine salesmen today and rather than simply saying no thanks in the space of three seconds, I thought I'd listen to what he had to say for as change, for a little while at least.
When discussing recouping installation costs, especially if I moved home, he used a fairly obvious tactic that installing solar energy would increase the value of my home. Really? I enquired...How's that then and where do you get the data? Said he couldn't give actual figures funnilly enough but it got me thinking...
Does installing solar energy increase the value of your home and if so, by a sufficent amount to recoup costs on moving? I'm not convinced.
If I was viewing two houses and choosing between the two, I'm not sure a bank of solar panels stuck on the roof would be high on my priorities, nor would that encourage me to pay more for that house.
There are quite a few people where I live that have had solar panels put up recently. I don't know whether they are good value long term but I do know I would not buy a house that had them not least because they look hideous.
I wouldn't factor in the capital value increase in any decision. Too hard top know. The only (but selfish - see below) reason to install them is because the government subsidy makes the economic payback period reasonable. If the installation company (or someone else) will finance the installation at an interest rate that is more than covered by your subsidized net feed-in tariffs, then you win immediately.
Without government subsidies they are not an economic proposition. Small-scale solar electricity is about the most expensive way to generate electricity yet devised. Overall, society is much better (tonnes of carbon saved per dollar invested) off by pooling "green electricity" money into funds (those greedy bankers again) and investing in efficient industrial-scale projects. But there aren't really the votes in that, so we are encouraged towards the economically-worst solution. Some individuals are better off (those in a position to take advantage of the subsidy), and the rest of the electricity users and taxpayers pay for it.
Thanks, Winky
i knew all along it was the Bankers fault!
Debs
My view on saleability of houses with or without panels.
If the panels are owned by the house owner then the house with panels will be cheaper to run, essentially it will be council tax free.
My view is that in the future (say 5 years or longer) any house with a south facing roof without panels installed will be less desirable than houses with panels installed
So a paneled house will sell faster than an unpaneled house.
AS for house with panels owned by a third party the buyer will only get the benefit of reduced electricity costs and have to deal with another company to resolve any problems with the panels. So therefore a less desirable house.
Derry - RE .... "not least because they look hideous"
Agreed. In my village we have a bunch installed that has a bright steel or alloy frame - hideous.
Our local building firm has just taken on the franchise for a make that has much thinner profile but more significantly dark coloured frames plus a semi non-reflective glass - far far less noticable & almost nice to look at. Might think about it
Does anyone here ever watch ‘Grand Designs’ on the television?
The last episode I watched featured a generously sized detached family home build under a huge arch of tiles [which was later covered with soil and allowed to grass].
The sides of this construction was put to the usual modernistic large trendy windows, large open plan livings spaces, etc.
The total construction cost of this dwelling came to around £500,000.
All very peculiar perhaps but after a couple of years of age; the sonar panel installation coupled with the highly eccentric efficiency of insulation was resulting in an annual electric fuel bill return of minus -£2,000.
They compared this power cost with a typical family 3 bed house [brick under tiled roof bay windowed semi] with a family of four which may typically have an annual electric/gas bill of £1,500.
So the total difference is £3.500 annually!
The irony is that these day the wealthy, who are often able to avoid paying tax are now able to avoid paying heating and power bills too… plus they also get money back from selling power to the grid, and money that comes from the poorer paying populace who will rarely be able to afford the venture of sonar panels.
And even if most people did magically gain sonar power for their homes, it would simply be taxed to death so everyone would end up paying fortune again.
Sometimes i wonder if the only reason we have an energy crisis is because it’s a nice little big fat earner.
Debs
Oops!
sorry... i should have wrote: Solar in above post [and not sonar]
Ping!...
Ping!...
Ping!...
Does installing solar energy increase the value of your home and if so, by a sufficent amount to recoup costs on moving? I'm not convinced.
If I was viewing two houses and choosing between the two, I'm not sure a bank of solar panels stuck on the roof would be high on my priorities, nor would that encourage me to pay more for that house.
Apparently quite a few buyers have found it difficult to get a mortgage for a building with solar panels.
Look out for the small print in the contract. Some installers offers a low installation price in the expectation they will earn extra money in penalties. If system fails and is unable to provide power to the grid you could be hit by high penalty charges.
Watch out for the contract stating if the ROOF, not the panels, requires maintenance the work must be carried out by the panel installers. They will charge an arm and a leg.
There are two types of solar panel purchase deals
1 Rent-a-roof - where the installation company owns the panels and receives the Fits payments - feed in tariff payments - the house owner gets the benefit of any electricity generated - can reduce the electricity bill by quite a bit especially if you use power during the daylight hours.
2 - The house owner purchases the panels outright and owns them and receives the Fits payment as well as the benefit of the generated power plus a rebate of about 3p for half the units generated - it is assumed that you use half the power created and feed in half to the grid. The house owner is responsible for maintenance and servicing the panels and inverter. See various sources for life of the panels and inverter.
AS for some banks building societies not wanting to give mortgages on houses with panels - you also get some organisations refusing to give mortgages on timber frame houses, thatched roof houses, houses that are not run of the mill etc.
The number of houses with panels will gradually increase and so mortgage companies will have to take them in their stride or lose business.
Hello,
Where I live few people that have had solar energy panels put up recently. And they are having good value for long term. Any one can purchase solar panel, in fact most of houses having their own solar panels.
You can't make any assessment of the return from solar panels without knowing their failure-rate - a statistic I have never been able to obtain from a salesman.
Work in Japan and Australia suggests that the failure rate for inverters - the bits that generate the AC for the house and the AC sent to the grid - is 5-10% over 5 years.
We also don't know how much payments for electricity sent to the grid will vary in future years.
This sounds like one of those deals that appears to pay off in the early days, with functioning inverters and high payments for AC sent to the grid. It is a very uncertain proposition thereafter with two critical factors remaining unknown.
Fraser