watervole: (Save the Earth)
Judith Proctor ([personal profile] watervole) wrote2010-11-22 12:54 pm

Payback time for solar panels

According to this study, the payback time in energy costs for solar panels on roof tops is around 4 years.  However, I'm not sure what latitudes they're considering. (and I'm not sure of the date either)

This summary of research from the Centre for Alternative Technology estimates that even in Europe, the carbon footprint of photovoltaic panels is about a tenth of producing electricity by other means.  (assuming a 25-30 year lifespan of the panels)

Factors influencing the results include the carbon cost of mountings for panels (which used to be higher when aluminium was the main metal used), the energy mix in the country you live in - the carbon saving is greater if your country burns a lot of coal, carbon cost of labour and maintenance, energy losses in distribution, the carbon cost of making the glass panels, etc. 

(There's also interesting details of reductions in heavy metal pollution if you follow this link here.)

In short, I'm feeling a lot more positive about solar panels than I used to.  (But I still think roof-mounted wind turbines are useless)

There are still issues of whether the electricity is produced at times of day when it is useful, but I think they may well be useful overall - especially if battery technology continues to improve.


[identity profile] camies.livejournal.com 2010-11-22 02:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Solar direction is also an issue - my house has few south-facing faces (it's the northernmost house of a north-south terrace). Solar panels are a technology I want to look into though.

I recently visited the Cooper-Haggard house (http://www.flickr.com/photos/16156673@N00/5198416566/in/set-72157625445152652/) in San Luis Obispo. This is a passively-heated off-grid strawbale house - although it takes its water from a local stream which isn't an option for everyone.
ext_15862: (Default)

[identity profile] watervole.livejournal.com 2010-11-22 02:28 pm (UTC)(link)
If you don't have a south-facing roof, then it's probably a case of forgetting about solar panels.

Interesting building. Note the massive over-hang for shade in summer.
ext_27570: Richard in tricorn hat (Default)

[identity profile] sigisgrim.livejournal.com 2010-11-22 07:45 pm (UTC)(link)
A south facing roof isn't a prerequisite. In your case it might be worth investigating putting panels on both the eastward and westward facing roof slopes. That way you'd get power from the morning sun and the afternoon sun, about the only time you wouldn't get anything is for a couple of hours during mid-day.

[identity profile] vicarage.livejournal.com 2010-11-22 02:39 pm (UTC)(link)
Photovoltaic technology is improving so fast there is actually a strong argument to postpone deployment until the technology is mature, as costs are dropping faster than energy savings. I've started eyeing up potential houses to see how the roofs align with the sun, but I wouldn't be an early adopter

[identity profile] undyingking.livejournal.com 2010-11-22 04:31 pm (UTC)(link)
Even now, the fixed installation costs (ie. the scaffolding tower and the electrical kit) are much greater than the actual panels cost. We've been looking into it recently (having made the same sort of reappraisal as [Unknown site tag]), and found that essentially whacking up as many panels as you can in one go makes it quite attractive.

My impression is that the real rapid progress being made these days is in low-cost low-efficiency materials, so more useful for eg. if you're getting your roof entirely retiled or getting a new flat roof put in -- no current tech developments seem likely to make a huge difference to the foreseeable economics of just adding traditional rigid panels to an existing roof.

[identity profile] vicarage.livejournal.com 2010-11-22 04:44 pm (UTC)(link)
It was the flexible stuff I had in mind. What area did you think you needed for conventional panels? I was wondering about garden sheds, which need refelting regularly anyway.

[identity profile] undyingking.livejournal.com 2010-11-23 10:13 am (UTC)(link)
We're looking at about 12 sq m of panels (basically the whole of our bathroom roof), which with our angle and orientation should generate somewhere around 1500 kWh per year.

Mm, I think that the flexible stuff will probably carry on improving in efficiency for a while. But otoh for an area of only shed roof size, and accessible by ladders rather than needing scaffolding, you're not going to be sinking a lot of money into the actual purchase and installation of the material. The main fixed cost will be the current inverter and other electrical paraphernalia to connect it to the mains, which would be reusable (I would think).
ext_15862: (Default)

[identity profile] watervole.livejournal.com 2010-11-22 05:54 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm vaguely considering the firms that do free installation for you and then claim the Feed In Tariff.

You can't really lose out with those as they do the maintenance as well.

It strikes me that they won't sell you a duff product as it's only in their interests to install panels, if your roof is indeed suitable and the panels sturdy enough to last the full 25 years.

Don't currently have enough free cash to buy in my own right, so I'd be a later adopter in any case.

[identity profile] jon-a-five.livejournal.com 2010-11-23 08:14 am (UTC)(link)
It's still no good for those of us who live in flats :-)

[identity profile] concoffhuz.livejournal.com 2012-02-09 09:06 pm (UTC)(link)
Обилие интересных статей на вашем блоге меня поражает! Автору – удачи и новых интересных постов!Image (http://zimnyayaobuv.ru/)Image (http://zimnyaya-obuv.ru/)

[identity profile] jankayka.livejournal.com 2012-02-20 10:50 pm (UTC)(link)
И все же, многое остается не ясным. Если не затруднит, распишите подробнее.Image (http://zimnyayaobuv.ru/)Image (http://zimnyaya-obuv.ru/)