Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

UK solar panel salesmen "bamboozling householders"

  • 25-04-2010 2:48pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭


    Which? magazine in the UK recently did an investigation into sales tactics used by salesmen for solar panel systems. They asked 14 firms to quote for a solar powered domestic hot water system.

    They found that -

    Of the 10 that exaggerated the financial savings that could be made, the double-glazing giant Everest subsequently admitted that its representative had made false claims – that its system could save 30 times more money than was possible.

    and

    Not one of the 14 companies tested identified all the important technical challenges (including inspecting the roof from the ground, inspecting the existing gas boiler, cold water tank in the loft, and hot water cylinder, and checking the water quality and whether the washing machine and dishwasher could use solar-heated water before providing a quote). Five provided a quote over the phone without even bothering to visit the property. Just one company was found to be helpful and provide sensible advice.

    More here:

    http://www.which.co.uk/advice/how-to-buy-solar-panels/buying-solar-panels/index.jsp

    and here:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/major-solar-panel-firms-are-misleading-consumers-1953587.html

    This only goes to reinforce the oft-repeated points made on this forum - "do your own research" and "caveat emptor"!


Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,737 ✭✭✭MidlandsM


    I think when I go to do it ,I'll do this -

    Anyone who bamboozles me will not get my business........simple.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭heinbloed


    From the Independent article linked above in the OP's thread:

    "Which? condemned most of the companies it came across as "cowboys"......"

    I can fully suport this statement.

    Many ST companies incl. those advertising on this forum, claim that the harvested thermal kWhs from a ST collector fed into a storage tank are equivalent to saved kWh of electricity - the electricity bill.

    Like 1000 kwh fed into the tank per year will save 1000 x € 0.15 = €150 saved per annum on the energy bill.

    Toy installations will never earn their money back when comparing delivered-to-the-tap prices with different energy supply methods (ST versus condensing boiler or electric resistance).
    Only large scale installations of a few hundred m2 are profitable for those who have to pay for them. The smaler the installation the less likely it will pay for itself. This fact is agreed on by the ST industry world wide. See also
    http://www.solarthermalworld.org/node/1053


    To avoid being duped ask for a signed and guaranteed financial ammortisation time.

    False promises to the consumer will lead to an eternal come-back time, a life long guarantee so to say. Keep these brochures well, they are your money-back guarantee.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭quentingargan


    It has been pointed out often on Boards that if you have a gas fired combi boiler, your solar panel will not make the same sort of savings.

    The principle benefit of solar is that if the central heating is off, your hot water in the summer comes from either an electric immersion, or by runnining a boiler very inefficiently just to heat a small amount of hot water in a cylinder.

    I would dispute the notion that a very large solar array will save more money than a smaller one. Where solar excels is in providing the required amount of hot water at a time when hot water is most expensive (either because it is coming from the immersion or from an inefficient setup which was designed to heat a house, not to heat a small cylinder).

    Extending this with larger arrays in a domestic situation usually means that you are trying to get more heat at the fringes of the season, when there is less energy from the sun, and often when the heat being displaced is coming from a cheaper source (i.e. the boiler is running anyhow). In a commercial situation, you are usually trying to replace a very efficient gas boiler.

    Many people put in solar panels simply because they would rather get their hot water from the light than the dark, so to speak. Payback times have to take into account what you believe might happen to energy prices over the lifetime of the system. If energy prices rise by a modest 10% per annum, compounded, then it makes a lot of sense.

    They stopped making oil some 100 million years ago and peak production is either here or is close (unless you like the tar sands process). The last time demand exceeded supply, there was a 700% increase in prices. That'll happen again if the recession bottoms out.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    It has been pointed out often on Boards that if you have a gas fired combi boiler, your solar panel will not make the same sort of savings.

    For completeness, it should be pointed out that there are also oil fired combi boilers on the market. Indeed, although out of deference to the mods I won't name the firm, one of the most highly respected makers of condensing oil boilers (both combi and standard) is Irish.
    Payback times have to take into account what you believe might happen to energy prices over the lifetime of the system. If energy prices rise by a modest 10% per annum, compounded, then it makes a lot of sense. They stopped making oil some 100 million years ago and peak production is either here or is close (unless you like the tar sands process). The last time demand exceeded supply, there was a 700% increase in prices. That'll happen again if the recession bottoms out.

    Forecasting future energy prices is necessarily speculative and if any of us could do it with any accuracy, we'd be making our millions investing in oil futures. That said, I have trouble with characterising a 10% compound price increase as "modest". In my view, this rate of increase would be enormous - prices would double every 7.5 years! This is far beyond any forecast general inflation, of which energy forms a very large part. You touch on the most important point when you mention the tar sands - like it or not, as oil prices rise exploitation of currently uneconomic unconventional sources like the tar sands becomes more feasible, bringing more supply to market. The 700% increase you mention did happen, but from a very low base of about $20/barrel. For the price to go up 700% from where it is now, it would have to reach around $670 a barrel. It may happen, but I would have no hesitation in sticking my neck out far enough to say it won't be any time soon and certainly the possibility is not a sensible basis on which to be deciding whether to install solar panels.

    The only sure thing which does tip the balance a little further in favour of solar is the carbon tax which comes in on Saturday and which will raise heating oil by about 6.5% and natural gas by 7%.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭quentingargan


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    The 700% increase you mention did happen, but from a very low base of about $20/barrel. For the price to go up 700% from where it is now, it would have to reach around $670 a barrel.

    Yes, sorry. I should have said that it might go up by the same amount again in cash terms, back up to the levels we saw at the peak, and above. That would bring about a doubling of energy prices well within seven years (if it happens of course). $670 a barrel would send us all scuttling off to the hills, where we might not be too pushed about hot water:)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭gman2k


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    The 700% increase you mention did happen, but from a very low base of about $20/barrel. .

    Yes, but when oil was 20/barrel it was still considered expensive, of course, looking back with revisionist eyes it becomes cheap.
    The current price of oil/barrel will be looked upon as cheap in a very short time.
    A lot of commentators are predicting a 200/barrel price by 2012 or very soon thereafter, and whilst we may not want that to happen, wishful thinking will not prevent it.
    Increased demand by Asian developing and recovering economies inc China will get the price/barrel back up to the heady heights of mid 2008 very shortly. Throw in the factor of imminent rising inflation in western economies that resorted to 'quantitative easing'.... and the issue could escalate very quickly.

    Without going off topic too much, it reminds me of the jokers who are calling for introduction of 'stable' nuclear production in this country - where we once again would be tied to a imported finite resource, with supplies from relatively unstable geopolitical regions. (Throw in the fact that our descendants in 5000 years time will still be dealing with the waste from same - just cos we all wanted the lights on at the same time)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    The average price in Ireland of a litre of unleaded petrol in Feb 2002, according to the AA website, was €0.81. Today, it's €1.318, a 63% increase. In the same timeframe, according to the SEI, kerosene for home heating has risen from €0.41/litre to €0.66/litre - a 61% increase.

    Over the same period, the US dollar price of crude oil has risen from $21/barrel to $85, a more than 300% increase.

    The point is, the relationship between the dollar price of crude and the euro price of refined products is pretty loose. Basing cost and payback projections on the assumption that a certain percentage increase in the dollar price of crude will be matched by the same increase in the euro cost of heating oil is not very sensible. There are many other factors involved, such as the running costs and capacity of refineries, transport costs, exchange rates, taxation, etc, etc.

    Coming back to the thread topic, the lesson is if you are considering a solar system, do your own calculations and disregard any projections given to you by salesmen!


Advertisement