05 Sep 2008
Solar cell manufacturers have branded the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) "irresponsible" after the organisation published "unresearched" claims that it would take more than 100 years to pay back the cost of installing a solar panel.
The RICS said its Greener Homes Price Guide, released earlier this week, offers "impartial expert advice on the cost, energy saving, payback period, and disruptiveness of green improvements to your property," and recommends insulation and boilers as a more cost effective investment than solar panels.
However, Solar manufacturers disagreed vehemently with the study's findings, arguing that the claim that it could take an entire century for a solar panel to produce enough energy to cover the initial cost of installation was completely wrong.
"We have asked them for a withdrawal of these patently false figures," said Andrew Lee, head of Solar at Sharp Electronics. "We need to try and find out how they came to these numbers. We can only presume they were using old data."
Jeremy Leggett, executive chairman of panel manufacturer Solarcentury said RICS claims were based on serious miscalculations.
"RICS calculations completely omit to consider return on investment, when technically solar on your roof gives you better returns than leaving your money in a bank account," he said. "Furthermore, their figures do not assume any rise in energy prices, when a conservative estimate of 10 per cent a year would transform the calculations."
The solar manufacturers say RICS calculations fail to include grants from the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) that allow householders to apply for funding of up to £2,500 to install microgeneration technologies.
The potential for those using microgeneration to sell power back to the grid is also omitted, according to the manufacturers. This week Scottish and Southern Energy told customers providing energy generated through microgeneration technologies that they will be paid 20p per unit for their exported electricity, meaning the average Solar Century customer would pay back their initial investment in 13 years.
The manufacturers expect return on investment periods to shorten further as rising energy costs rise and the cost of solar panels falls.
Solar firms also contested the RICS claim that the average photovoltaic panel only had a shelf life of 30 years. "Just because a solar panel has a warranty of 25 years, doesn't mean that should be taken as an indication of its lifetime," said a spokesman for Solarcentury. "Some of the first solar panels manufactured by Sharp and installed in Japan more than 40 years ago are still generating electricity today. And that's using half century old technology."
A study released by Greenpeace this week found that solar energy is becoming more economically viable and should become cost-competitive with conventional energy by 2020 across most of Europe. "Solar photovoltaic electricity has the potential to supply energy to more than four billion people by 2030 if adequate policy measures are put in place today, " said Ernesto Macias, president of the European Photovoltaic Industry Association.
However, RICS stood by its report, insisting that it would allow the solar companies to examine its figures.
"We take into account maintenance and installation costs – more than a solar vendor will give you in their pricing estimate," said a spokeswoman. "We haven't included the grants in our calculations because you can't presume everyone is going to get one."
LATEST STORIES ABOUT ENERGY
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
LATEST JOBS
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
HIGHLIGHT
The best green companies in the UK should be preparing their entries for annual BusinessGreen Leaders Awards
INSIGHT
INSIGHT
The science and practical application of an improved method for the specification of power and cooling infrastructure for data centres
A look at alternative approaches to managing energy for cost and/or sustainability reasons in data centres
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Add your comment
The Emperor is naked
How irresponsible of the RICS to state the blindingly obvious fact that PV even with massive subsidies from the taxpayer (£2500 per installation) and additrional socialised subsidies from other energy customers (around £200 per year for SSE customers) plus additional socialised costs from the Renewables Obligation, still does not pay back in any sensible time span. Even with all these subsidies you could not achieve a payback less than 20 years which means that it will never pay for iteself if you have to borrow the money, and even if you have the cash the return would be better from any BS savings account. This might all be worthwhile if the carbon saving credentials meant solar would save the planet, but PV has substantial amounts of embodied CO2 which make it worse carbon payback than fossil fuelled CHP.
Posted by microchap, 10 Sep 2008
Incentivizing the general public to combat climate change through the wider use of solar energy.
With the skyrocketing energy prices and the credit crunch affecting more and more of us, it is no wonder that we are becoming more reluctant to act even if we don't fool ourselves into a false scepticism about the human causes of global warming. In hard times people will look to any excuse to either avoid or even acknowledge their responsibilities if it costs them. Global warming, or more accurately, climate change is a fact Even though we in the West are not feeling the full force of it yet, it does not mean it is not happening. The evidence is growing, yet, as it is said, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Mother Nature has been around for billions of years and will always survive. What is not certain is our survival. We are talking about saving our home - the planet earth. We should make sure that our home is still habitable not only for our children but their children too. In short, we have to reduce our carbon footprint and our ever-increasing reliance on fossil fuels. High oil prices of recent years will go a long way to achieve that in part, this is a simple case of economics in action, but this will take too long. Rather than implicitly punishing us through global economic forces, possibly strengthened by green taxes the best way to achieve our goals of continued human civilization would be to harness those same economic forces and incentivize the general public to take action. Solar Energy4All, are offering people the opportunity not only to save on their electricity bills but at the same reduce the amount of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere, by installing solar photovoltaic systems in areas where sunshine is in ample supply. As electricity generation is responsible for nearly 40% of all CO2 emissions, it's a great start. And it's a start that we can all make to our individual and collective benefit. Don't wait for the politicians to solve this - show the politicians that this is really a case of power to the people. So why not visit their website, http://www.solarenergy-4all.com do yourself a favour, do mother nature a favour and above all do your children a favour.
Posted by Sam Almozaffar, 08 Sep 2008