RETIRED2017
Registered User
- Messages
- 756
Solar panels - advice please
- Thread starter Susie2017
- Start date
@Leo - Sorry I wasn't too clear there; I was actually agreeing with you that micro-generation doesn't seem to stack up from a government-support/environmental point-of-view, but was just disagreeing with the statement that nobody ever looks into whether it does or doesn't. The likes of that paper makes it pretty clear that the best application of government money (from both a cost and environment POV) would be in supporting large centralised renewable energy projects. My understanding from other papers is that this is also the best approach for the grid.
Those are my 2 cents anyway
EV subsidies are quite different to micro-generation subsidies. There is no equivalent to pooling all the micro-generation grants and buying a giant solar farm here, unless you consider electrified public transport to be that analogy, but I think that's a bigger issue. So while a carbon tax to push up the cost of ICE cars would probably be better, subsidies are the next best bet to increase the adoption of EVs which are better for the environment and for which there is a fairly large body of evidence.
I think these are different as well. The government can encourage people to replace their gas/oil boiler with a more efficient one and save a small bit of carbon output, but if they can encourage people onto electric heating of some sort (like heat pumps) they can then centrally drive down the carbon output of electricity generation. This one I haven't thought much about, but I think it's probably self-evident comparing a gas boiler to a heatpump running on electricity that is getting cleaner and cleaner?
In summary I think the EV subsidies and those that encourage people to reduce energy consumption are fairly well backed and should exist. As for why we have grants for home solar, honestly I think that is down to pressure from interest groups. You see complete uproar in the US as feed-in-tariffs are rolled-back and even here if you're in the right forums you'll see constant complaining about the lack of FITs etc., which the government have tried to avoid bringing in. Now of course if the argument is that it is more efficient for the government to do it centrally, they damn well need to actually be doing it, which they most certainly are not in Ireland and are only paying lip-service to in the US. But I think most people pushing for home solar grants and FITs would be understanding if the government came out and said "Listen we're not going to bring in a home solar grant this year, but we are going to take those X million €, add a lot more, and start building huge numbers of solar farms, wind farms and grid-scale battery storage and WILL be at 50% renewable by 2025, 75% by 2030". But if they don't do either, I can understand why some people (me included) would like to just stick up some solar panels and at least feel we are doing our bit.
Those are my 2 cents anyway
Fair enough. I just wonder just how much could have been achieved if all these small grants and the overheads involved had been invested in large scale projects. When the grants for solar water heating were introduced, the most obvious impact was the price of installation went up by about €1000.
The problem I see with some of these grants is they don't suit every house, and no consideration is given to that. For much of the Irish housing stock, switching to a heat pump wouldn't make sense economically or in terms of carbon emissions.
To be fair, I don't think these schemes adds up to that much. For example in 2017, the Dept CCAE had €90m allocated to all of these climate action schemes (EVs, RHI, Better Energy schemes etc.). Not a trivial amount of money, but it would only build a single small wind farm. I also think there's quite a bit of value to the awareness these schemes create. As an example, my parents are super interested in electric cars because of the announcement of reduced tolls and the free charging, even though they'd rarely use them if they bought EVs, it gets people talking and thinking about switching, which is pretty valuable. It would be interesting to see who many TV ads the government could buy instead, but if you add up the industry and jobs that have also been created I suspect the spend is net-positive for the economy...
Very few government schemes for anything will apply to 100% of people, I don't believe this is a reason not to do them though or we would not make much progress as a society. To take a slightly tongue-in-cheek example of that, should we not bother improving roads because it doesn't benefit walkers. However leaving that aside, I think consideration is being given. Heatpumps work well for new builds so that works for them, then if you have an existing house you can get grants to switch to a more efficient gas boiler, to insulate your attic etc. In fact I doubt there are many properties that aren't eligible for at least some sort of grant to become more efficient.
Just make sure they know free roadside charging is supposed to be withdrawn...
That was kind of where I was going, some of the technologies like heat pumps are best suited to highly efficient new builds. Grants don't apply to new builds, energy efficiency for those is achieved through the building regs.
The grant for boiler upgrades has been discontinued since the start of this year, switching to a heat pump system in the only funded option for space heating source. In most cases, it would not be a good idea in terms of overall carbon emissions or running costs to switch to some of the options available, yet consumers are being fooled into thinking they're doing the right thing.
So while they certainly have raised awareness, most of these grants have done nothing to make energy efficiency upgrades more affordable to the consumer, they've just pushed prices up.
Many thanks for comments. I have had a quote from a company in the Midlands. They would supply a kingspan HP400 which are apparently the latest in tube technology. There 40 tubes placed on the roof with a 20 year parts and labour warranty. Servicing is done once every 3 years the cost of €300 including VAT. These tubes are 30% more efficient than flat panels. The immersion is replaced with a 300 L version twin coil stainless steel insulated cylinder. 1 coil from the gas boiler and 1 coil from the solar tubes. The cost for all of this is €5600 net of the grant. I'm told if a heatwave occurs and the water is heated to 95°C then it automatically switches off (a unique feature of this panel apparently). There is no need for a buffer tank. If I wish to get zoned heating controls with remote access then the cost rises to 7800 also net of grant. The salesman tells me that payback for the system will occur within 8 years based on an SEAI calculator. It will take one day to install. Any comments on this setup are welcome.
That's not a good feature. Solar water systems need a heat dump to prevent it from overheating in such a scenario.
Worth a look at this Susie before making a decision, could be very timely for you - https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/new-solar-pv-and-battery-grant-launched-today.209116/
Laughahalla
Registered User
- Messages
- 356
Susie, There is a new solar PV grant announced (yesterday) that will give you back €700 for every 1kw of solar PV installed to a maximum €2800 . You could get this instead of solar water heating.
A diverter on your existing emersion can take excess PV generated and direct it to your Tank.
Depending on your usage, solar PV might be better than Solar water.
A diverter on your existing emersion can take excess PV generated and direct it to your Tank.
Depending on your usage, solar PV might be better than Solar water.
Ceist Beag
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,426
Apologies for the completely ignorant question regarding solar panels but curiousity has gotten the better of me! All references I see to use of solar panels tends to be to use them to heat water. Is there no way of using solar panels as an alternative source of electricity to the mains? Is there no way of taking the electricity generated and having this as a first source of electricity for the house and switching to the mains once this is used up?
Like I said, I'm completely ignorant of how these work so if there is a simple dummies guide to this that even I can understand then I'd welcome it!
Like I said, I'm completely ignorant of how these work so if there is a simple dummies guide to this that even I can understand then I'd welcome it!
There are two varieties of solar panels, the more common evacuated tube variety that heat your water and photovoltaic (PV) flat panels that generate electricity.
The water heating variety have been far more popular here for a number of reasons, but primarily because assuming you get good quality panels properly installed, they will pay for themselves within about 10 years, depending on your household's water usage. But they also work much better in our climate where they will even make some contribution on cloudy days.
If you were able to use hot water for your washing machine or dishwasher, you might shorten the payback period, but modern efficient machines mean this isn't an option either.
PV panels are generally installed south facing, as that's where the sun is..right? But that means they generate the vast majority of their output between around 10am-2pm, before 8am or after 4pm, you'll get little or nothing. In other countries, you get paid for excess electricity that you generate and feed back into the grid, in Ireland you give it to them for nothing. Unless you are a heavy electricity user during the middle of the day, you will get little benefit yourself from a typical PV installation. In many cases such a PV system will never pay for itself.
I said typical above as domestic storage battery technology is still relatively new, and the [broken link removed] just announced will generate a lot of interest. This adds a large battery to the PV setup so excess energy can be stored for use when you need it. There will be energy lost in the charge and discharge cycle of the battery, and the battery capacity will gradually decline over the years. So while such a system will allow you make better use of the energy your panels generate, the jury is still out on whether they can pay for themselves.
In addition to Leo's post above, someone mentioned that it is possible, if you have an electric car at home most of the day, that the excess electricity generated during the day can be used to charge that. In effect you are using your electric car as a storage battery. It is something I am going to look at soon, as I cycle to work, and am thinking of changing the car next year for an electric one.
Ok. Thank you. The idea of the PV system with storage in a battery of excess power sounds attractive. I believe some of these batteries can also take power from the ESB st night rate and store it. Wonder how long their lifespan is and how expensive they are to replace.
I have been researching another type of panel system which is called 'thermodynamic solar energy' with a maximum thermal power of 2200W. This heats water up to 55 degrees Celsius (supposedly all year round). There is no electricity generated. There is an aluminium solar panel with high corrosion resistance. It can be used retrofitted to the existing cylinder. It is manufactured in Portugal with a Dublin-based supplier. There is a 10 year manufacturer's guarantee for the flat looking solar panel. There is no maintenance required. Fluid passes to the solar panel at a temperature of -15°C thereby allowing collection of energy from the sun rain and wind. As the fluid is running at a negative temperature it connects the heat from the air by natural convection working also at night. The fluid is then compressed in the solar box which causes the fluid temperature to increase. The heat is then released into the circulating water by way of a high-performance heat exchanger. Finally the fluid goes through an expansion valve and evaporates back into the solar panel and the process repeats. I'm told this is like a reversible fridge unit. There is no grant available but you can claim the VAT back through the HRI. It costs approximately €6000 - 7000. I am getting an exact quote later. I am wondering if anyone has any experience of this unit. This company also does PV panels with a battery for storage. I am getting a home visit and will feedback.
I have been researching another type of panel system which is called 'thermodynamic solar energy' with a maximum thermal power of 2200W. This heats water up to 55 degrees Celsius (supposedly all year round). There is no electricity generated. There is an aluminium solar panel with high corrosion resistance. It can be used retrofitted to the existing cylinder. It is manufactured in Portugal with a Dublin-based supplier. There is a 10 year manufacturer's guarantee for the flat looking solar panel. There is no maintenance required. Fluid passes to the solar panel at a temperature of -15°C thereby allowing collection of energy from the sun rain and wind. As the fluid is running at a negative temperature it connects the heat from the air by natural convection working also at night. The fluid is then compressed in the solar box which causes the fluid temperature to increase. The heat is then released into the circulating water by way of a high-performance heat exchanger. Finally the fluid goes through an expansion valve and evaporates back into the solar panel and the process repeats. I'm told this is like a reversible fridge unit. There is no grant available but you can claim the VAT back through the HRI. It costs approximately €6000 - 7000. I am getting an exact quote later. I am wondering if anyone has any experience of this unit. This company also does PV panels with a battery for storage. I am getting a home visit and will feedback.
Google that, and ignore the results from people selling them...
They operate in a similar manner to heat pumps, but on a small scale. The reason there's no grant is they can't prove that they're efficient in our climate.
Well id say im around 750.I have a large tank and a big bath. If i want a bath in the evening i have to turn on immersion for 30 mins, in addition to 45 min for the morning. I googled it as you say Red onion there is not much enthusiasm or evidence for them. Iam having a visit today. Salesman keen on a quick visit. There is no grant as you said so would take a good few years to recoup cost. One article says it would save 50% of immersion cost per year so that would be only 375 euro. I read that there can be problems with ice build up and refrigerant leak. Not adding up if cost is 6 - 7 k.
So that 30 minute boost is consuming up to a maximum of 1.5 units of electricity, costing around 20c depending on your supplier. May help in calculating if solar makes sense for you.
No doubt keen on a quick sale too, so you don't get time to think it through fully and work out what it'll cost or save you in the long run.
I'd say that should be 'up to 50%'