Solar panels

I would like other peoples educated thoughts on this as a ten year investment on my property,i.e.initial outlay against savings and returns.

[flymo]

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/...rgy-Calculator

[tigersaw]

Most deals are quoted as having a payback time - usually 8-10 years in which, assuming the government keeps its feed it tarrif promise and no additional expence is incurred such as panel failure or inverter replacement, you will break even.
However if you simply invested the money in a long term bond it would be worth 70% more in 10 years anyway - although thats very simplistic, as you do still have the solar equipment asset after the same period.
Solar panels are inefficient - reasearch will make them cheaper and better as years go by.
If you choose to move how do you value them? Some buyers may be put off by them, they look fugging ugly up there on the roof. Think of houses on the market now with 20 year old solar water systems (1990's big fad) that need removing.

[flymo]

Originally Posted by tigersaw

Most deals are quoted as having a payback time - usually 8-10 years in which, assuming the government keeps its feed it tarrif promise and no additional expence is incurred such as panel failure or inverter replacement, you will break even.
However if you simply invested the money in a long term bond it would be worth 70% more in 10 years anyway - although thats very simplistic, as you do still have the solar equipment asset after the same period.
Solar panels are inefficient - reasearch will make them cheaper and better as years go by.
If you choose to move how do you value them? Some buyers may be put off by them, they look fugging ugly up there on the roof. Think of houses on the market now with 20 year old solar water systems (1990's big fad) that need removing.

lol, its not some sort of government 'promise', its a contracted arrangement that is valid for a full 25 years linked to inflation. That is a legal agreement that could be challenged in court should it be breached.

You over simplify the isolated bond investment by ignoring the cost of buying energy throughout that entire period which is significant, along with the benefit of being able to reduce that purchase need and be able to consume (and be paid for) solar energy throughout that period.

The equipment becomes paid for in that initial 8 year period depending totally on size/cost of installation but after that it keeps on earning with a very predictable income to the end of the 25 years. The value of a solar investment has been proved over and over by numerous experts, why is it necessary to go over old ground continuously?

Your opinion of the aesthetics is just that, an opinion. I guess it totally depends on the circumstances of the property but I would argue that the solar installation on my property looks pretty good, not out of place at all.

The value of a solar installation at sale time is simple, especially as its a fully owned system. Your property is sold with a set of solar equipment along with a predictable income and a reduced energy bill that can be demonstrated. A fairly positive attribute to a property in my opinion, especially in todays spiralling energy costs.

[tigersaw]

Originally Posted by flymo

lol, its not some sort of government 'promise', its a contracted arrangement that is valid for a full 25 years linked to inflation. That is a legal agreement that could be challenged in court should it be breached.

A bit like my pension arrangements? Pull the other one, sucessive govenments can wriggle out of anything.

My understand is (and I could be wrong as it's not something that I follow) but the government tried to reduce their payments, but after a court challenge were told this would be a breach of contract and they have to keep paying it?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/943f2138-2...#axzz1m5CPto6K

[flymo]

Originally Posted by tigersaw

A bit like my pension arrangements? Pull the other one, sucessive govenments can wriggle out of anything.

I bet your pension does not contract a guaranteed outcome throughout its lifespan. Anything can be broken, even a contract, no argument there. But you cannot provide an argument on the basis that one side is doubtful because the 'promise' could be broken and on the other that a long term bond is guaranteed. Difference is that a contract is legally binding, its much less likely that a contracted arrangement would be modified detrimentally by the government and for it to be retrospective, they would be forced to compensate.

Originally Posted by EssexDave

My understand is (and I could be wrong as it's not something that I follow) but the government tried to reduce their payments, but after a court challenge were told this would be a breach of contract and they have to keep paying it?

This is a different thing, it relates to the cut off date that new installations could join the scheme. The government wanted to bring that date forward and lost (although its still under appeal). Beyond that date new installations have a different feed-in-tarriff rate and so a different financial business case with a longer pay back period.

Prior to the new rates this was a no-brainer, on the new rates its much less attractive and back on par with traditional savings investments.

[tigersaw]

Legally binding, just like when a preferred index is changed from RPI to something called CPI which never existed when the contract was entered into.
OK back on track.. I'd suggest researching the inverter the installer will be supplying, and the warrentee on it.
By my reckoning the weakest link, often fitted in the loft space to save on cable costs, but subjecting it to thermal extreems throughout the seasons. Also likely the item on which there is the most mark up in the first place.