XPost: uk.d-i-y, alt.home.repair, alt.sci.physics
From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news:op.z20v37qhwdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...
> On Fri, 07 Jun 2019 00:03:59 +0100, Rod Speed
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
>> news:op.z2zh8yb8wdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...
>>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 23:03:17 +0100, Rod Speed
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
>>>> news:op.z2zge2ejwdg98l@desktop-ga2mpl8.lan...
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2019 22:48:40 +0100, Andy Burns
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Very little incentive to have any at all now that the
>>>>>>>> feed-in/bribery
>>>>>>>> tariff has ended.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's what I would have thought, but these houses are only a couple
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> years old.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FIT ended (for new installs) 31st March 2019.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wasn't aware it was a different date for new installs. I tried to
>>>>> get
>>>>> some on my existing house 5 years ago and just missed it.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, if the bribery had ended, why did they install any at all?
>>>>
>>>> Likely because it can still be worth doing without the bribe
>>>
>>> If it's worth installing a few, why isn't it worth installing the full
>>> roof area?
>>
>> Because when you are buying a new house, you normally have
>> a problem getting someone to lend you that much money and
>> even if you can do that, you still have to pay for it eventually.
>
> Surely if I buy a new house with solar on the roof, the builder has paid
> for the panels and it's included in the cost of the house?
Corse it is, but with twice the panel size, the price of the
house would have to be higher and so fewer would find
someone prepared to lend them the money to buy it,
particularly when the double panel house wouldn't
actually be valued by the bank much if any higher.
>> And when you no longer get bribed to have solar
>> panels, there is no point in being able to generate
>> more than you can actually use yourself.
>> It isnt even worth sizing the panels so they will always
>> be able to generate what you use yourself in the worst
>> weather with fuck all solar insulation available, it makes
>> makes more sense to buy from the grid in those conditions.
> Agreed - so why have any panels on them at all?
Because with the power generated in the best weather that
electricity will in theory cost you less than buying it from the grid.
I havent done the calculations for scotland but it wouldn't
surprise me its actually better to not have any solar panels
and to put that money in shares or a mutual fund instead.
That would likely end up with a better result after say 20 years.
But with those new houses its even more iffy because the
bulk of those buying those houses would have to borrow
the money for the panels.
> Clearly the builder decided it was a good idea to have a few, so why not
> more?
Looks like that builder decided to have competitive
advantage by having some low cost green shit like
a few solar panels and the rainwater recycling hoping
that there would be enough stupid greenys around
who would buy his houses instead of his competitors
houses and would be too stupid to actually calculate
if it made sense to do the house that way instead of
spending that money on bigger rooms etc.
It would be interesting to see if that approach worked for the
builder and if there are enough stupid greenys that stupid there.
> Either each panel makes more than it costs, or it doesn't.
Its nothing like that simple when the choice is to spend
that money on stupid stuff like solar panels in scotland
or to have a better house like bigger rooms or a decent
double garage for your cars etc.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
