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

Solar panels, worth the money ????

  • 09-09-2010 9:44pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 500 ✭✭✭


    Hi all,

    I was wondering did anyone get solar panels fitted to their house lately for hot water ??

    How much does it roughly cost and how would you rate it perform , worth the investment or not ???


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Hi all,

    I was wondering did anyone get solar panels fitted to their house lately for hot water ??

    How much does it roughly cost and how would you rate it perform , worth the investment or not ???


    They talk about them a bit over in the Construction forum. I gather the pay back time is so long that you'd be better off saving energy elsewhere if you have the option (insulating walls, double glazing, roof insulation. I also gather that you have to be wary of 'calculations' done by the panel companies which might well over-gild the lily in terms of what your water usage rates are and what you can expect the panels to contribute.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    Solar panels are being sold very poorly in my opinion. No one knows enough about them to understand what they are getting.

    To truly get the value on them i think you need to install a solar panel along with a stainless steel or glass lined pressure cylinder to do this good your looking at a spend of between 6 and 8k. now factor in the expected return on a 4k solar panel being 6-8 years then you realise that going solar is not a credit union loan but a major capital spend which will need to be done at the house construction phase.

    btw...in my opionion its worth it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,410 ✭✭✭bbam


    Hi..
    We installed ours during our build 18 months ago.. 5.5sq meters of flat panel. We have a triple coil 500l ss highly insulated tank...

    We wanted a method of heating water during the summer months when we wouldn't have either our stove or oil running.. The results have been great, we can have showers, baths and still some left over no problem... They even ran last Christmas week, they run far more than I expected and often have the tank hot and are off by 3pm..

    I never bothered calculating pay-back as it was something I wanted to reduce our reliance on electricity as we were in our last home..


    If it's hard financial savings you're after, it will be over the long-term.


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 7,730 Mod ✭✭✭✭delly


    Thread moved from DIY


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 842 ✭✭✭cabledude


    Firstly i'm neither an electrician or a plumber/installer. I built a house 3 years ago and at the time had intended putting in solar panels for my DHW. We put in a 250l stainless steel insulated tank with a 3kw immersion heater. But we never went to the next step of putting in panels. Thankfully....

    Over the 3 years we used oil exclusively to supply our DHW. This year after the cold winter we decided to investigate putting in a boiler stove which would heat water and rads. So our intention is to use stove when our heating is necessary i.e. late autumn winter early spring and for the summer months we will use the immersion heater to supply DHW. With this in mind we decided not to use oil over the summer to supply our DHW and instead rely on the immersion heater instead. I installed an APT timer switch and programmed turn on the immersion for 2hrs each evening. This, coupled with a well insulated tank,heats enough hot water for 4 showers and holds enough water for washing hands dishes etc during the day. This has added approx €40 to our bi monthly bill or €20 euro per month. Using this figure the cost of your immersion in the year is approx €100 euro (immersion only used in months where you will not use stove or oil boiler).

    A standard solar system will cost in the region of €5000. Solar will not service any energy needs other than hot water. If i could supply a tank of hot water every day for the figures I mentioned it would take a lifetime for solar panel system to pay its way even after taking into account grants etc. Spend your money on extra insulation or a boiler stove.....

    Solar retailers/installers have a vested interest in promoting their virtues. Beware my friend.....


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10 Tony_Homefuel


    They talk about them a bit over in the Construction forum. I gather the pay back time is so long that you'd be better off saving energy elsewhere if you have the option (insulating walls, double glazing, roof insulation. I also gather that you have to be wary of 'calculations' done by the panel companies which might well over-gild the lily in terms of what your water usage rates are and what you can expect the panels to contribute.

    Hi ,
    I got solar panels in about a year ago , and yes I think they are worth it , you will get them now installed for alot less ,spend about 8 thousand euro but you can apply for a grant and you will never have cold water .
    Cheers


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


    cabledude wrote: »
    I installed an APT timer switch and programmed turn on the immersion for 2hrs each evening. This, coupled with a well insulated tank,heats enough hot water for 4 showers and holds enough water for washing hands dishes etc during the day. This has added approx €40 to our bi monthly bill or €20 euro per month. Using this figure the cost of your immersion in the year is approx €100 euro (immersion only used in months where you will not use stove or oil boiler).

    A standard solar system will cost in the region of €5000.

    Almost half of the work and cost of installing solar water heating is putting in a well insulated cylinder, which you have already done. This will provide benefits in cost saving all year round, and is worth doing on its own.

    But it wouldn't cost anything like €5K for the upgrade to put solar onto that cylinder.

    Also, in terms of cost, the normal use of hot water is considered to be about 40L per person per day. That is 160L per day, requiring about 9Kwhrs, not 6 as per your calculation. If this is daytime power, it will cost about twice what you have calculated.

    The solar will also reduce the heat required for the rest of the year, but the savings are at a lower rate because using your boiler becomes cheaper than using the immersion.

    But if your hot water needs are more modest, then yes, solar would take longer to cover its costs. That all assumes that energy prices don't rise during the lifetime of the product though....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭mink_man


    you only get hot water for shower and sinks and baths....now how much would you spend on a shower a year, about 120 per person if you spend 20 mins in a shower. you still use electricity to heat water for the ashing machine, dish washer etc etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,822 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    ...well, I put in a 1000l buffer, and 3 panels, and I'm sorry I didn't put in 6.

    Even as it is, it cost €5500, and I got a grant back from that. Can't remember how much (it was 07), but it was over 2k.

    Now, that leaves 3.5k it cost me, but let's round it up to 4k.

    4k over 35 years is €114 per YEAR. This currently not only heats all our DHW during the sunny periods, it contributes during the not-so-sunny. I've seen 58deg C coming off the panels in deepest December..... My cost then, is less than 3 months of extra ESB on the post above with the immersion.........which, btw, I don't have, either.

    In darker times, my gas boosts the tank, and because it's a 1000l unit, it's my buffer for my underfloor heating, as well. So, who says it does DHW only ????

    Works for me, and anyone who's ever picked up a garden hose on a sunny day has always thought 'if only........'

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,150 ✭✭✭homer911


    mink_man wrote: »
    you only get hot water for shower and sinks and baths....now how much would you spend on a shower a year, about 120 per person if you spend 20 mins in a shower. you still use electricity to heat water for the ashing machine, dish washer etc etc.

    While I'm an advocate of SHW, it is very hard these days to find a Dish Washer (very wasteful anyway) or a washing machine that will take a hot water feed - most only take cold water feeds and require electricity to heat it up..

    Maybe we should start a sticky on hard to find domestic applicances that are energy efficient?

    (I'm sure someone will prove me wrong now..)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,822 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    homer911 wrote: »
    Maybe we should start a sticky on hard to find domestic applicances that are energy efficient?

    (I'm sure someone will prove me wrong now..)

    actually, we had this conversation at home, lately: all the new appliances seem to have cold-only connections, whereas our old ones had both.......very annoying.

    Surely, in this day and age, dual input is best, and with the controls on board, it could 'know' which input to use, and where warm water is present, to use that first, and to only top-up to the set temp, where required. Ditto, for cold wash/cool wash, to use cold water. The control system on UFCH and SOLAR is no more complex, tbh........

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



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


    galwaytt wrote: »
    actually, we had this conversation at home, lately: all the new appliances seem to have cold-only connections, whereas our old ones had both.......very annoying.

    Surely, in this day and age, dual input is best, and with the controls on board, it could 'know' which input to use, and where warm water is present, to use that first, and to only top-up to the set temp, where required. Ditto, for cold wash/cool wash, to use cold water. The control system on UFCH and SOLAR is no more complex, tbh........
    Indeed. In fact, we paid quite a few bob extra to get a dual fill washing machine - a model which is now no longer available. When we started it up and played around, I doscovered that the programme controlled the hot & cold valves as follows;

    40 Degree wash - use all cold water
    60 degree wash - use 50/50 cold and hot.

    Add to this the fact that the first couple of litres are cold water in the pipework, and you have nigh on no gain from your solar hot water!

    When I asked about this, it was because the machine manufacturer was concerned that if water was over temperature, colours would run, with ensuing lawsuits.

    We have our washing machine in the utility room, so we put a short length of hose with a hoselock connector onto the tap. We put in the detergent, fill the machine using the hose from the hot tap poked into the detergent drawer until we see water in the glass, and then switch it on at the 40 degree setting. (For some daft reason, if you switch it on at the 60 degree setting, it drains the machine and then fills it again).

    All the rinses are cold, and this system has worked well for us for the last few years. We can adjust the temperature of the water, and as long as the final temperature is above 40, the heater on the washing machine doesn't usually come on. I have measured the power used for a wash, and it is about half when we use hot water this way.


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


    Add to this the fact that the first couple of litres are cold water in the pipework, and you have nigh on no gain from your solar hot water!

    This is the problem, and is why cold water only inlets on these machines make sense. I have to give you credit Quentin for the measures you take to ensure you use solar heated water to do your washing, but realistically they are impractical for most people, and they would also directly conflict with the possible use of a delayed start option to do washing on night rate electricity.

    The much more sensible option is to manage down hot water use, for example with the newer detergents which work at temperatures down to 15C, rather than going to heroic lengths to maximise the proportion of solar heated water used.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,822 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    This is the problem, and is why cold water only inlets on these machines make sense. I have to give you credit Quentin for the measures you take to ensure you use solar heated water to do your washing, but realistically they are impractical for most people, and they would also directly conflict with the possible use of a delayed start option to do washing on night rate electricity.

    The much more sensible option is to manage down hot water use, for example with the newer detergents which work at temperatures down to 15C, rather than going to heroic lengths to maximise the proportion of solar heated water used.

    Well for a start, 15 deg water may well wash the (white) collar workers bib's ( ;)), but it won't shift anything I come across ! :D And you do have to wonder about the chemicals involved, to make it work at that temp......

    Anyhoo - the dead leg problem isn't insurmountable - hotels and hospitals do it, using a loop system. Not advocating that in your house, but I'm suggesting that that technology on a miniature scale, even using v.small bore circuit, in the machine, would sort that. It's not rocket science. If your fridge can email you to tell you you're out of milk, I don't see why not.........:)

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



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


    galwaytt wrote: »
    Well for a start, 15 deg water may well wash the (white) collar workers bib's ( ;)), but it won't shift anything I come across ! :D And you do have to wonder about the chemicals involved, to make it work at that temp......

    Anyhoo - the dead leg problem isn't insurmountable - hotels and hospitals do it, using a loop system. Not advocating that in your house, but I'm suggesting that that technology on a miniature scale, even using v.small bore circuit, in the machine, would sort that. It's not rocket science. If your fridge can email you to tell you you're out of milk, I don't see why not.........:)

    Horses for courses, as ever - personally, my washing machine only goes as low as 30C and at that I notice no difference whatever from the results of washing at 40C. Some stuff does need a hot wash of course, but the general point stands - concentrating more on reducing energy use rather than trying to switch wasteful use of energy to renewable sources is the best way to go.

    As for the fridge, when Tesco can e-mail me back the milk, I'll be interested . . .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,053 ✭✭✭Casati


    I totally recommend them, to have hot water generated from the sun is really fantastic- we installed in the summer and our hot water needs are fully met (4 people/ power showers most days). V important to spend a lot of time getting them positioned correctly to capture morning sun is critcal.

    Payback is over a number of year but with all energy costs set to rise dramatically because of future carbon taxes and greater demand (when we come out of the recession)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29 enquiringminds


    Here's my humble opinion. We live in a 3 bed semi. We have a new condensing boiler and a 190l stainless steel cylinder with a dual coil ( suitable for solar panels ). We currently heat our hot water using the gas boiler. During the Summer, when the heating wasn't being used I monitored the gas usage to estimate the annual cost of heating the hot water. This figure came out at approximately 300 euro.

    A solar water heating system typically provides about 50% of the hot water requirements of a house ( according to various sources ). This means that there is the potential saving by installing the system of about 150 euro. In most solar water heating systems there is a small circulating pump that would cost in the region of 50 euro per year to run. This means that we could potentially save approximately 100 euro per year using a solar water heater.
    A plumber I know well quoted us 2,200 to install a small 2m2 tube solar water heating system. This would qualify for a grant of 600 euro, leaving a cost of 1,600 to pay. Recouping the cost at 100 euro per year means that it would take 16 years to recover the cost of installing the system.
    The manufacture of solar hot water systems is most likely done using traditional energy sources and the materials aren't "sustainable". I'm not convinced about solar panels :confused:


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


    We have a new condensing boiler and a 190l stainless steel cylinder with a dual coil ( suitable for solar panels ). We currently heat our hot water using the gas boiler. During the Summer, when the heating wasn't being used I monitored the gas usage to estimate the annual cost of heating the hot water. This figure came out at approximately 300 euro.

    A solar water heating system typically provides about 50% of the hot water requirements of a house ( according to various sources ). This means that there is the potential saving by installing the system of about 150 euro. In most solar water heating systems there is a small circulating pump that would cost in the region of 50 euro per year to run. This means that we could potentially save approximately 100 euro per year using a solar water heater.
    A plumber I know well quoted us 2,200 to install a small 2m2 tube solar water heating system. This would qualify for a grant of 600 euro, leaving a cost of 1,600 to pay. Recouping the cost at 100 euro per year means that it would take 16 years to recover the cost of installing the system.
    The manufacture of solar hot water systems is most likely done using traditional energy sources and the materials aren't "sustainable". I'm not convinced about solar panels :confused:
    There are a few points to this though;

    You already have a well insulated cylinder. This is normally part of the cost of installing a solar water heating system. Not so in your case. Also, you have a very efficient boiler (but everyone should be doing that bit).

    The solar panel you were quoted for would barely meet 50% of your water needs. I would prefer to put that labour into putting in a properly sized panel which would meet up to 70% of your water needs, but at least 60%, and probably with no change in price because the cost of additional tubes are usually more than covered by the cost of the grant.

    Your pump would only cost about €10 per year to run, if that. Nowhere near €50.

    Add to that the likelihood that gas prices will rise over the lifetime of the system, and it starts to make a heap of sense.

    You are now saving about €200 per year for a cost of €2,200, and that saving will rise with energy costs. You've improved the BER rating of your house, and its resale value. And you have the satisfaction of getting most of your water from the light instead of burning fossil fuels from Siberia.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29 enquiringminds


    Hi Quentin,

    I think you're right about the size of the system. There are guidelines about sizing the system given the number of people in the house. Typically 1m2 per person, I think. The <SNIP> website recommends 100l of storage for each square metre of tubes.

    <SNIP>

    That limits us to 2m2 of panels, as our cylinder is only 190l. On the same page, which is quite old, you can compare the prices for a 2m2 panel system and a 3m2 panel system. There is a difference of 800 pounds between the two.

    The figure of 50% that I gave is a reflection of what is in literature:

    http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Solar_Energy/Solar_Heating_at_Home/

    If we use the figure of 60% and the pump was free, that would mean the system would save potentially up to 180 euro per year. If I install the larger system it would cost in the region of 5,000 euro per year and earn a grant of 300x4 = 1,200 euro. That would mean 3,800/ 180 = 21 years.:confused:

    Mod Edit: Please don't name or link to a specific company on thread.


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


    Some companies use a smaller solar panel per L of water to reduce the need for a heat dump. If you size your panel so that it provides enough hot water for the household in September and March, it will produce an excess in May to July. I prefer to over-size the panel, maximise solar gain, and use a heat dump radiator to get rid of the surplus. That way you can get up to 70% of hot water provided by solar at not much more cost.

    In relation to your cylinder, while it is on the small side for solar panels, provided your water isn't too hard (limescale forming..) you can heat the water in your cylinder to 85 degrees and use a blending valve to bring it to a safe temperature at the taps. 190L of water at 85degrees stores the same amount of "heat" as 285L of water at 60 degrees. ;)

    Installing a larger system onto your existing cylinder should't cost you a penny more than the 2M system. The panels will be an extra couple of hundred and the grant will more than pay for the difference.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29 enquiringminds


    Quentin,

    There are a host of issues with your post.

    The first is the introduction of a dump valve to gain 10% of our hot water costs. 10% of our hot water cost, for a house with 4 adults, is 300 x 0.1 per annum, or 30 euro. How can you justify oversizing the system and plumbing up a dump rad for 30 euro per annum? That's assuming that the system provides 60% of the hot water requirements during the year, which is already at the top end of seai projections. During the Summer we don't require heating and therefore I'd expect that a rad that heats then would be wasteful. It is also most likely that the rad would heat during the day, when heat wouldn't be required. The idea of wasting energy like that to try to save heat just doesn't add up to me...

    My second issue is similar to the first. Storing water at high temperatures is costly. The losses are greater due to heat loss, poor heat exchange efficiencies, and it creates the requirement for an anti-scald valve. We aren't limited by the size of our cylinder as it is, and we store water at a relatively low temperature.

    I've done the rough calculations for a smaller system, and I've done the rough calculations for a medium system. There is a grant of 300 euro per m2 for tube systems up to a max of 6m2. If we installed the biggest system possible it would most likely cost about 6k. The system you are talking about would probably cost more. The grant would then be 1,800 euro. That would leave 4,2k to recover. Let's say the system performed even better than you predicted and gave 80% of the hot water requirements. That's 300 x 0.8 = 240 per annum. That would take over 17 years to recover. That's not including the cost of the pump to run the system.. Have you ever heard of NPV?? Also bear in mind there may well be a decrease in efficiency of the system...

    There are two additional things to consider. The first is that we would consume a large amount of goods and services to come up with 4,2k to pay for the system. We try to be good to the environment but we still eat, drink, drive, work, travel, wear clothes etc. ( not necessarily all at the same time...) So, we have an impact on the environment to put this money together.

    The second is the rising cost of energy. If you can predict the price of energy, then I would suggest that your talents are wasted selling solar water heating systems.

    To answer the OP's question, 60% of the energy consumed in the home is consumed for space heating. 25% is consumed for heating hot water and the remaining 15% is consumed on electrical products, such as fridges, lights, etc. These proportions give a good starting point on where to increase efficiency. Imagine, if you save 10% on heating, it's the same as almost halving your hot water energy consumption.... food for thought. Another interesting thing is that we consume 3% of our energy on lighting. I don't know about you but every light we have is energy saving :o

    The energy saving trust has a lot of information about what to focus on.

    http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/

    There are documents in the homeowners section, and if you're feeling brave you can look into the Business and Public Sector tab. There is a scary amount of info in there. It was a real eye opener for me. The two main areas to focus on, as far as I could see, were insulation and heating.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,547 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    How can you justify oversizing the system and plumbing up a dump rad for 30 euro per annum?

    I would have thought the incorporation of a dump would be primarily to improve the overall lifespan of the equipment and the 10% saving per annum would be a fringe benefit.


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


    Quentin, There are a host of issues with your post.

    The first is the introduction of a dump valve to gain 10% of our hot water costs.
    Poor Uncle Tom has responded on this and I agree.

    The idea of wasting energy like that to try to save heat just doesn't add up to me...
    Well, you're only wasting sunlight that is landing on the roof of your house anyhow.

    Storing water at high temperatures is costly....and it creates the requirement for an anti-scald valve.
    Its not costly - its free. It is good practice to have a blending valve for safety anyhow. Also, allows you to circulate water at a lower temperature than the storage temperature so you save energy.

    If we installed the biggest system possible it would most likely cost about 6k. The system you are talking about would probably cost more.
    Putting a heat dump on costs less than €300. The panels themselves are usually not a huge chunk of the cost. The expense is the plumbing and installation which costs no more for a larger panel. If you already have a cylinder in place, it should cost less than half of the cost you are suggesting. By the way, I wouldnt' go for 6m on a 190L cylinder. Maybe 4, depending on roof orientation etc.

    To answer the OP's question, 60% of the energy consumed in the home is consumed for space heating. 25% is consumed for heating hot water and the remaining 15% is consumed on electrical products, such as fridges, lights, etc.
    With well insulated houses, this ratio is changing. Also, we are tending to use more hot water. When I was a kid, we had a bath once a week, usually using using the same water for several baths in descending order of age. Nowadays people shower more and smell less... In general, energy used to heat water is rising, while energy used to heat houses is falling.

    The two main areas to focus on, as far as I could see, were insulation and heating.
    Totally agree. I would always encourage householders to get their houses insulated as a priority over solar.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29 enquiringminds


    Poor Uncle Tom,

    I've done a little reading and I agree that a heat dump is a good thing to have to protect a solar system, particularly if the system is oversized.

    Quentin,

    wasting energy..
    I just got a price of 1,880 for a 2m2 system and a price of 2,300 for a 3m2 system, ex labour. That's a difference of about 420 per m2. So, I agree that the grant covers most of the difference in size. I'm pretty sure there was no cylinder included in the quote.

    storing water..
    I agree that an anti-scald mixing valve is good practice to have, although I also believe that the efficiency of the heat exchangers go down as the storage temperature goes up.

    Costs...
    Our plumber was looking for 400 euro to install the system. Our roof faces SW, so we could probably accommodate a larger panel but the efficiency would be reduced.

    energy consumption...
    that may be true to some extent and a generalisation is always open to exceptions. In our particular case I think our heating and hot water costs are almost equal. We have a pressurised system and the occupants have somewhere between 4 and 5 showers per day. We recently insulated the whole house and installed new windows and doors. Add to this improved heating system and controls and our heating costs are quite low. That reminds me to track our heating costs.

    Areas to focus on...
    I'm glad we've found a common ground :). I'm not against solar by any means, but like you, I think people should focus on areas where they can make the biggest savings. Once those areas are addressed then people can look at where they may make more savings.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 470 ✭✭phester28


    That sounds like a good price for solar. Does that include a tank and or a heat dump or have you one already.

    can you share some of the details Supplier etc?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,550 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    phester28 wrote: »
    can you share some of the details Supplier etc?
    PM's please.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29 enquiringminds


    phester,

    I already have a good dual coil cylinder, so my system is reasonably well prepared for a solar panel. I'd like to point out at this stage that I'm related to my plumber who is giving me a good deal on the install. In fact, I'd probably end up helping him with it if we went ahead with it.:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29 enquiringminds


    em, I checked my figures again and the picture is a little different, unless I have made a mistake:o

    In June we averaged a consumption of 1.2m3 per day of gas over a period of 20 days.
    The conversion factor is about 11.5kWh/m3. That gives a figure of 13.8 kWh per day used to heat the hot water.
    I used a unit cost of gas of 4.5 cent/ kWh. That gives a daily cost of 62 cent.
    Annually, that converts to 227 euro to heat our hot water. Add VAT by adding 13.5%, which gives 257 euro.

    If that calculation is correct it is possible to estimate an annual cost of heating hot water using gas by multiplying the daily usage in cubic metres by 214. e.g. 1.2 x 214 = 257 euro

    Please bear in mind we have a new condensing boiler and a stainless steel cylinder.


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


    The possible cash savings on solar hot water, whatever way you slice and dice the numbers, never seem to get close to coming under the 10 year threshold beyond which trying to extrapolate both energy prices and future household hot water use get increasingly into the realms of mere speculation.

    That said, as Quentin often points out, it's not all or even mainly about cash, it's about leaving a habitable world for our children and theirs. It's rare, though, to see estimates for the environmental payback on solar hot water systems, in terms of CO2 emissions avoided, which take into account the embodied CO2 and energy in the solar system itself. Can you shed any light on this Quentin?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,822 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    As an aside, and a solar user myself, I'm aware that the numbers don't, won't, always stack up. There's always some part of the equation that everyone will pick up on. Cost, Installation, Running, Maintenance. Take your pick.

    So, sticking to costs, we could make the sweeping statement that, effectively done, payback is anywhere from 6 - 16 years, depending on your point of view. And, if I row in the capital amount we're talking about - let's say 2500.

    Right, look outside your front door.

    Now, tell me, how much depreciation did your car suffer in the last year ??

    So, even a very modest car, would lose 2 k in a year, and go upwards. May I suggest you drive your car for just 1 more year than normal, before changing it, and now: your solar is paid for. Q.E.D. :D

    Next ?? :p

    And if, in doing so, your driving habit has been changed once, maybe it'll stick, and you can extrapolate your 10 yr motoring savings, and offset them against whatever you want. Or, just send me a cheque........ :D:D

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



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


    galwaytt wrote: »
    So, even a very modest car, would lose 2 k in a year, and go upwards. May I suggest you drive your car for just 1 more year than normal, before changing it, and now: your solar is paid for. Q.E.D. :D

    Next ?? :p

    And if, in doing so, your driving habit has been changed once, maybe it'll stick, and you can extrapolate your 10 yr motoring savings, and offset them against whatever you want. Or, just send me a cheque........ :D:D

    This is a false dichotomy - just because you've made a saving on the car depreciation, doesn't necessarily mean it's sensible to spend it on a solar system. (Which itself would be depreciating in value, albeit at a slower rate than the car!)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,822 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    This is a false dichotomy - just because you've made a saving on the car depreciation, doesn't necessarily mean it's sensible to spend it on a solar system. (Which itself would be depreciating in value, albeit at a slower rate than the car!)

    ...no it's not: otherwise you'd spend it on another car anyway, which would continue the rate of depreciation, ad nauseam. Spending it on a solar system, even if it's not the perfect solution - is still a spend on a (productive) asset, and we're just leveraging the timescale. The car that does that hasn't been invented yet........

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



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


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    This is a false dichotomy - just because you've made a saving on the car depreciation, doesn't necessarily mean it's sensible to spend it on a solar system. (Which itself would be depreciating in value, albeit at a slower rate than the car!)
    Agree, although I bought a wind turbine for €20K about 8 years ago, and bought a €500 banger the same year. Most people who asked me about payback time on the turbine were in the habit of forking out for a new car every three years.

    There is another issue is that most folks lutimately spend virtually all the money they have. People who save petrol by driving a smaller car may use the savings by taking an extra overseas holiday.

    Regarding earlier question about energy payback time, I did some work on this a while back and will rummage for the figures, but embodied energy was relatively low by comparison with saved energy for solar panels. Granted that as you put more panels up, this ratio changes. All figures depend very much on how well the system works in its location, so you can't give definitive figures. In the meantime, Pehndt (here) provides comprehensive info on all aspects of the impacts made/saved by various renewables. Also, most components of a solar panel etc., are ultimately recyclable.


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


    galwaytt wrote: »
    ...no it's not: otherwise you'd spend it on another car anyway, which would continue the rate of depreciation, ad nauseam. Spending it on a solar system, even if it's not the perfect solution - is still a spend on a (productive) asset, and we're just leveraging the timescale. The car that does that hasn't been invented yet........

    Why is it not? Because you say so?

    The thrust of your logic is if you put off changing your car for a year, you'll get your solar panels for free. You won't. You'll save whatever you save and then you have a choice as to what you spend it on, or alternatively put in the bank or under your mattress. Spending the money saved on solar panels is just one option.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,547 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    The thread title is 'Solar panels, worth the money ????' the car analogy is beaten to death at this stage. Please stay on-topic.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29 enquiringminds


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    The possible cash savings on solar hot water, whatever way you slice and dice the numbers, never seem to get close to coming under the 10 year threshold beyond which trying to extrapolate both energy prices and future household hot water use get increasingly into the realms of mere speculation.

    That said, as Quentin often points out, it's not all or even mainly about cash, it's about leaving a habitable world for our children and theirs. It's rare, though, to see estimates for the environmental payback on solar hot water systems, in terms of CO2 emissions avoided, which take into account the embodied CO2 and energy in the solar system itself. Can you shed any light on this Quentin?

    Gizmo,

    strictly speaking this is off topic ;) although I think you've raised a relevant issue. Here's my ( unsolicited :o ) ramble on your post and others:

    Energy efficiency improvements are best made in an orderly fashion. For example, it doesn't add up to say that because heating their hot water is expensive, a person should install a solar panel as the first course of action.
    Installing a solar panel has a long, potentially infinite, economic payback in my opinion. I believe that it would take us well over 20 years to recoup the cost of installing a solar panel. For other people it may never happen. It is way down the list of things people should do to make their homes energy efficient. Bear in mind that the general advice is to replace a boiler every 10 - 15 years. That will bring increased efficiencies and skew the picture.
    If we take harmful CO2 emissions in the same light. We should look to see which area globally produces most CO2 emissions. If that is the case, I would suggest that domestic solar panels are way down that particular list.

    Here's my opinion on solar panels and CO2 emissions ( again unsolicited :o )
    1. I was shocked at how little it cost in monetary terms to heat hot water for a house of 4 adults using a modern, efficient system. I'd guess there is a CO2 emission figure related to natural gas.
    2. The cost to the environment of going solar starts with an individual making/ saving/ borrowing :eek:/ selling their car to the tune of a solar panel system. According to the SEI website the cost is 4,000 to 6,000 euro. Let's assume the individual doesn't downgrade to a banger to afford the panel and that they work for the money. I think that is reasonable to do as work is the main source of income for people. So, if a person has a carbon footprint to make money then we should multiply that figure by whatever the cost of the system is. Let me point out at this stage that old cars have higher CO2 emissions.
    3. The second "cost" to the environment is the cost to manufacture the solar system itself. That should include all the associated related activities, such as advertising, manufacturing, installation, etc, etc. Think of all those footprints.
    4. The third "cost" could be the running and maintenance of these systems. They typically have an electrical running cost and require routine maintenance, don't forget.
    5. The fourth "cost" should be an allocation required of the traditional system used to support the solar system. SEAI website reckons 50 - 60% of hot water is provided by the solar system, so the traditional heating system provides the rest, or we have cold showers in the winter.
    6. The fifth "cost" could be the grant that is provided by the government. The government isn't solar powered afaik. So, that'll be, say, 1,800 aggregate taxpayer carbon footprints.

    Now, I'm no wizz on calculating or adding footprints but my bet is the environment would be happier without solar panels....

    Just today, I got a small bag of what I think are wood pellets today from the SEAI. What happens to the picture if I decide to install a biomass boiler? AFAIK one of the main effects is that it will exacerbate the world food shortage as farmers grow less food in order to produce biomass crops.:eek:

    A friend of mine pointed out this evening that trees and plants consume carbon dioxide...

    Mod Edit: I will repeat myself just this once, STAY ON TOPIC.


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


    Well, coming back to the thread topic, "Solar panels, worth the money???", the answer purely in cash terms is an unequivocal "no".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 182 ✭✭saibhne


    Gizmo,


    Now, I'm no wizz on calculating or adding footprints but my bet is the environment would be happier without solar panels....


    Please read the paper QuentinGargan posted, it clearly states in a scientifically validated matter that this is not the case and that conventional means of producing energy (gas, oil..) are much more costly to the environment.


    http://www.ifu.ethz.ch/ESD/education/Masterstudium/AEA/Pehnt_2005.pdf

    In my opinion if you are going to make assertions it would be great if you could back them up with something that can verify them - otherwise you are just adding to the misinformation already rife on this subject.

    In terms of cost and payback there are also the external costs associated with using fossil fuels that need to be applied but never are. These external costs are not represented in current energy costs but we pay for them in other ways particularly in health costs. The European environment agency site here talks about the external costs of electricity production and tries to quantify them:
    http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/en35-external-costs-of-electricity-production#toc-4

    Their estimate is that in Ireland electricty production needs to have between 3 and 8 cents applied to it to cover the external costs that results from the pollution associated with it. To quote from the EEA:

    "The external costs that arise from the environmental impact of electricity production are significant in most EU countries and reflect the dominance of fossil fuels in the generation mix. In 2005 the average external costs of electricity production in the EU were between 1.8-5.9 Eurocent/kWh. Despite progress, these external costs are still not adequately reflected in energy prices. Consumers, producers and decision makers do not therefore get the accurate price signals that are necessary to reach decisions about how best to use resources."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29 enquiringminds


    Thanks Saibhne,

    I've started to read the article, although find it extremely hard to read. I can put that down to my ignorance.

    The OP question is, are they worth the money? I think I've expressed my opinion regarding economic payback. I suppose we should consider the word "worth" from the OP's point of view to answer the question more fully..?


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


    Saibhne & Quentin,

    I agree that the externalities involved in using fossil fuels are not adequately reflected in their prices. This makes it all the more important that people who are concerned about their personal carbon footprint can get usable information about the embodied CO2 and energy in green technologies they may use. The article Quentin linked to, while informative on the concepts, doesn't cover the specifics of the types of solar panel used in domestic installations. The parabolic trough system discussed under the solar thermal heading is quite different to what you or I might fit to our houses.

    We cannot make informed choices without proper information, of which there is a dearth. It surprises me especially that Quentin in particular as an enthusiastic proponent and supplier of solar h/w systems doesn't have reliable and up-to-date figures at his fingertips.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 182 ✭✭saibhne


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Saibhne & Quentin,

    The parabolic trough system discussed under the solar thermal heading is quite different to what you or I might fit to our houses.

    There are two solar systems discussed in the paper - the parabolic trough relates to electricty generation and is not relevant to domestic use as you say. However Pehnt also discusses domestic solar in the heating section, if you look at Figure 1 it is visible by the extremely large Iron ore/bauxite bar associated with it representing the aluminium frames most solar panels use.

    My opinion on payback for solar is that it is too difficult to come up with a definitive figure that holds water in simple economic terms, if you want an accurate figure that says this system will payback in x amount of time there isn't any. There are too many unknowns involved in terms of specific performance of solar systems (i.e. how a particular system will perform in a particular place) and how energy and commodity prices in Ireland and the world will fare in the next 20 years. One thing to note is that as energy prices rise so too will the cost to manufacture solar and other renewable energy systems.

    Simply put if you assume energy prices will remain stable for the foreseeable future and a quick (under 10 years) simple payback time is important then solar is not for you. If you think that energy prices will rise considerably due to the introduction of carbon taxes and the depletion of finite fossil fuels then there is a value to solar that is beyond simple economic terms.

    Siemens released a report recently which expressed a view that if Ireland did not move away from its extremely high reliance on imported fossil fuels (we import over 80% of our energy needs in the form of oil and gas) we as a society could be faced with a very difficult future. The report is here: http://www.siemens.ie/_documents/siemens_oilgas_report.pdf

    Just a small quote from the paper, it's intended for policy makers but I think it is relevant to anyone making a financial decision on future energy be it on a national scale or in your own home:

    "Policymakers must balance the costs and benefits of action against the costs and benefits of inaction, all under conditions of considerable uncertainty about the future. The risk examined in this study is that oil and gas prices may increase on unexpected pathways and supply may become constrained. The cost and impacts estimated in this study are considerable both for Ireland and the international community."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29 enquiringminds


    saibhne wrote: »
    There are two solar systems discussed in the paper - the parabolic trough relates to electricty generation and is not relevant to domestic use as you say. However Pehnt also discusses domestic solar in the heating section, if you look at Figure 1 it is visible by the extremely large Iron ore/bauxite bar associated with it representing the aluminium frames most solar panels use.

    My opinion on payback for solar is that it is too difficult to come up with a definitive figure that holds water in simple economic terms, if you want an accurate figure that says this system will payback in x amount of time there isn't any. There are too many unknowns involved in terms of specific performance of solar systems (i.e. how a particular system will perform in a particular place) and how energy and commodity prices in Ireland and the world will fare in the next 20 years. One thing to note is that as energy prices rise so too will the cost to manufacture solar and other renewable energy systems.

    Simply put if you assume energy prices will remain stable for the foreseeable future and a quick (under 10 years) simple payback time is important then solar is not for you. If you think that energy prices will rise considerably due to the introduction of carbon taxes and the depletion of finite fossil fuels then there is a value to solar that is beyond simple economic terms.

    Siemens released a report recently which expressed a view that if Ireland did not move away from its extremely high reliance on imported fossil fuels (we import over 80% of our energy needs in the form of oil and gas) we as a society could be faced with a very difficult future. The report is here: http://www.siemens.ie/_documents/siemens_oilgas_report.pdf

    Just a small quote from the paper, it's intended for policy makers but I think it is relevant to anyone making a financial decision on future energy be it on a national scale or in your own home:

    "Policymakers must balance the costs and benefits of action against the costs and benefits of inaction, all under conditions of considerable uncertainty about the future. The risk examined in this study is that oil and gas prices may increase on unexpected pathways and supply may become constrained. The cost and impacts estimated in this study are considerable both for Ireland and the international community."

    Saibhne and others,

    The document you linked to here is a report commissioned by Siemens. Like most commercially sponsored reports and papers there is a bias. The author offers scenarios to consider although does not make a prediction of future energy prices. This is effectively a marketing document. I think it fair to note that the quote you've included doesn't really say anything apart from people should weigh up their decisions. Good advice, although hardly groundbreaking.

    As for payback duration for solar, every case will be different but I think it reasonable to make an estimation based on efficient traditional systems. I can't predict the future, but I can make an estimation based on what I think I know, and that leads me to think that the economic payback is over 20 years. If I add in that there is a cost of finance, or a lost opportunity cost, then that horizon moves out. For example, if I bought government bonds with a yield of 6% with the money that I could have used for solar panels it would yield a return. Alternatively, if I topped up the mortgage or got a loan to buy the system that would lengthen the payback horizon.

    Many of the issues related to the environmental impact of the use of fossil fuels and renewable sources of energy are the subject of much debate. There are many organisations with vested interests, and discerning the real issues at stake is an impossibility for the normal individual, in my opinion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 182 ✭✭saibhne


    Saibhne and others,

    The document you linked to here is a report commissioned by Siemens. Like most commercially sponsored reports and papers there is a bias. The author offers scenarios to consider although does not make a prediction of future energy prices. This is effectively a marketing document. I think it fair to note that the quote you've included doesn't really say anything apart from people should weigh up their decisions. Good advice, although hardly groundbreaking.

    As for payback duration for solar, every case will be different but I think it reasonable to make an estimation based on efficient traditional systems. I can't predict the future, but I can make an estimation based on what I think I know, and that leads me to think that the economic payback is over 20 years. If I add in that there is a cost of finance, or a lost opportunity cost, then that horizon moves out. For example, if I bought government bonds with a yield of 6% with the money that I could have used for solar panels it would yield a return. Alternatively, if I topped up the mortgage or got a loan to buy the system that would lengthen the payback horizon.

    Many of the issues related to the environmental impact of the use of fossil fuels and renewable sources of energy are the subject of much debate. There are many organisations with vested interests, and discerning the real issues at stake is an impossibility for the normal individual, in my opinion.

    Did we read the same report? it's all about future energy price.. Sure Siemens have an agenda but at least its thought out and the data they use is verifiable. Many of the scenarios they use are based on ESRI research. I like this document because it is Ireland specific and it makes an attempt at quantifying the effect of high oil and gas prices on Irish Society. It's conclusions point to an urgent move away from oil and gas and to an electrification of many of our traditionally fuelled systems. This would benefit Siemens sure but I find it hard to argue against the figures.

    You might also like to have a look at these figures here which come from the SEAI which point to a doubling in oil prices by 2020:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055904596&highlight=saibhne

    As we are entering uncharted territory in terms of energy using traditional methods for estimating payback are ultimately flawed - Energy prices have new influences which will most likely result in a condierable rise - unless this is taken into accont a simple economic payback calculation is most likely inaccurate. For this reason the greater value of installing renewable energy needs to be also assessed in terms of providing energy security, Irish economic competitiveness, climate change mitigation and the availability of energy for future generations. All of which have a cost but no set price as yet..


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


    With repsect, saibhne, none of the information linked to by you or Quentin comes anywhere near providing specific figures on the embodied CO2 and energy in typical domestic solar hot water systems such as are commonly installed in Ireland.

    As both of you supply these systems and sell them both on the potential cash savings and their environmental benefits, it greatly surprises me that neither of you can provide this type of information to prospective clients.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29 enquiringminds


    Saibhne,

    I read the report. It is based on scenarios and it clearly states that it does not make an attempt to predict future energy prices. Why would the author of the report make such a claim? What I really don't understand is how you intimate that you can better predict energy prices than the author of this report?

    "Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI) was established as Ireland’s national energy authority under the Sustainable Energy Act 2002. Its mission is to promote and assist the development of sustainable energy." Is that clear enough for you?

    As far as the price inflation of fossil fuels goes, if the price inflation of anything goes up by 2.5% per year, it will increase by about 28% in 10 years. The average HICP inflation rate for the last 10 years is 2.5%.

    In response to "It's conclusions point to an urgent move away from oil and gas and to an electrification of many of our traditionally fuelled systems". The vast majority of the electricity generated in Ireland is generated using fossil fuels.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 182 ✭✭saibhne


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    With repsect, saibhne, none of the information linked to by you or Quentin comes anywhere near providing specific figures on the embodied CO2 and energy in typical domestic solar hot water systems such as are commonly installed in Ireland.

    As both of you supply these systems and sell them both on the potential cash savings and their environmental benefits, it greatly surprises me that neither of you can provide this type of information to prospective clients.

    With respect as well, you must have missed something, have you compared the results from Table 2 with Table 4? In terms of Greenhouse gas effect the conventional fossil fuel energy mix in Germany produces 81.5g CO2 equiv per MJ(th) and a solar collector system produces 6.1g CO2 equiv per MJ(th), I don't know how much clearer you can get..

    Solar thermal systems sold in Germany are basically the same as those which are sold in Ireland so there is no reason why this study is not relevant. If there is please let me know.

    The opinions I express here are the same as those to which I express to my customers (if they are interested) and I am always honest about the financial situation. Actually in my experience most people who are installing solar systems are doing so either because they have to by law but more so because they want to. By the time I talk to people on the phone they have decided they want solar (for many differing reasons including those mentioned above..) and payback doesn't seem to be the overriding issue.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 182 ✭✭saibhne


    Saibhne,

    I read the report. It is based on scenarios and it clearly states that it does not make an attempt to predict future energy prices. Why would the author of the report make such a claim? What I really don't understand is how you intimate that you can better predict energy prices than the author of this report?

    "Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI) was established as Ireland’s national energy authority under the Sustainable Energy Act 2002. Its mission is to promote and assist the development of sustainable energy." Is that clear enough for you?

    As far as the price inflation of fossil fuels goes, if the price inflation of anything goes up by 2.5% per year, it will increase by about 28% in 10 years. The average HICP inflation rate for the last 10 years is 2.5%.

    In response to "It's conclusions point to an urgent move away from oil and gas and to an electrification of many of our traditionally fuelled systems". The vast majority of the electricity generated in Ireland is generated using fossil fuels.

    Somehow I don't think you have read the report - the electrification of traditionally fuelled systems relates to transport mostly. This would benefit from an increase in renewable energy that mainly produces electricty. this is a fairly obvious conclusion stated in the report.

    Let me know when I ever made a claim to have been able to predict future energy sources accurately - In fact I claim the opposite, that any decision based on calculations using energy price alone is flawed because of the many unknowns and externalities. This is also echoed in the Siemens report, although it makes an attempt to quantify the situation it acknowledges the uncertainty.

    With regards fossil fuel energy prices you say that a 28% rise is expected by 2010 - can you back this up from any credible source? I have given you figures from SEAI which you refute, I'm interested in why you think they have an agenda to make these figures up? In my experience most of the statistical information coming from them is good.


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


    saibhne wrote: »
    With respect as well, you must have missed something, have you compared the results from Table 2 with Table 4? In terms of Greenhouse gas effect the conventional fossil fuel energy mix in Germany produces 81.5g CO2 equiv per MJ(th) and a solar collector system produces 6.1g CO2 equiv per MJ(th), I don't know how much clearer you can get..

    Solar thermal systems sold in Germany are basically the same as those which are sold in Ireland so there is no reason why this study is not relevant. If there is please let me know.

    You could get much clearer, but it seems you're unable to. For all your exhorting of myself and other posters to read this paper, it's apparent you haven't read it thoroughly yourself. Two types of solar system are referred to in it - a parabolic trough system, and a space heating system with long term heat storage, neither of which are directly comparable to the systems being discussed in this thread for providing domestic hot water only.

    The clarity I'm seeking and which, I repeat, neither you nor the other supplier of solar h/w systems on this thread has so far been able to answer, is what is the embodied CO2 and energy in these specific types of system, which produce far less energy than either of the above two types?
    saibhne wrote: »
    The opinions I express here are the same as those to which I express to my customers (if they are interested) and I am always honest about the financial situation. Actually in my experience most people who are installing solar systems are doing so either because they have to by law but more so because they want to. By the time I talk to people on the phone they have decided they want solar (for many differing reasons including those mentioned above..) and payback doesn't seem to be the overriding issue.

    I agree monetary payback is not necessarily the overriding issue, but if it isn't, then environmental payback must surely be. It seems though, you can't answer in straightforward terms the question of what the environmental impact of producing, transporting and installing the systems you sell is. Instead you point to an academic paper of tangential relevance to that specific issue.

    I never questioned and don't doubt your honesty - it's clear though that you are not disinterested and it's only natural that you are "talking your book".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29 enquiringminds


    Saibhne,

    "With regards fossil fuel energy prices you say that a 28% rise is expected by 2010 - can you back this up from any credible source? I have given you figures from SEAI which you refute, I'm interested in why you think they have an agenda to make these figures up? In my experience most of the statistical information coming from them is good."

    This is 2010 as far as I know.

    I didn't make any prediction of fossil fuel prices in the future. I simply gave an indication that if any good or service increased in price by 2.5% it would increase by about 28% in 10 years. I then pointed out that inflation has averaged 2.5% over the past ten years to give an indication that 2.5% is a feasible annual price increase of any good or service.

    The mission of the SEI is to promote and assist the development of sustainable energy, in their own words.

    In the other post to which you refer, you state that the SEAI have made a prediction on future energy prices.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055904596&highlight=saibhne
    The SEAI posits scenarios and bases them on possible forecasts by other bodies. You have cited this as a forecast.

    There was an article yesterday in the Irish Times newspaper showing a very disgruntled man with his woodpecker biomass boiler. There is a proliferation of people who are selling solar and biomass. That smacks of bleeding edge to me. There are many people selling inferior quality solar and biomass systems. Many of these systems will operate below optimal quality. Some estimation or account should be made of these systems.

    I'm aware of a local situation where a builder has installed a solar panel on a west facing part of the roof, which suffers much shade. I believe the builder doesn't care about the efficiency of the system but just installed it as it is a legal requirement.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14 evensteve


    Our family of four shower on average 1.5 times per day for an average of 3 minutes. This costs around 50 cents per day or (max) 200 euros per annum using electricity (the most expensive of the readily available domestice sources). The other hot water appliances in my house (kettle, washing machine etc.) heat the water directly themselves, and so are not suited to using solar heated water. As far as I am aware, even if my house was suitable oriented, there would be at least two months of the year when a solar installation would have to be supplemented by additional power sources. On an installation costing an net 2000 this would give a payback time of about 12 years. This is too long, in my opinion, as the longevity of the system itself is likely to be not a great deal longer. I would very much like if someone could point out any flaws in the above, as I would really like to stop paying the utilities their exorbitant charges.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement