# Solar panels - advice please



## Susie2017 (26 Jul 2018)

Hi all. Am thinking of perhaps installing solar panels. Recent heatwave and worry over global warming are factors. Was wondering if this would help to reduce my families carbon footprint. I use electricity every night to heat the immersion for morning showers. Electricity bills are too high. Very worried about the way the planet is heating up and the consequences for agriculture, transport, everyday life, fires etc. Irish politicians seem to be largely ignoring the issue. Anyway just wondering if this would be a good first step and looking for other ideas eg water butts/ harvesting to help conserve water etc that I could implement in my home to be a little greener. Hybrid car under consideration when next trading in. I have read that the evacuated tube type of panel is the best. One price I have seen is 5500 with a possible grant of 1200. Would love to hear from other people's experiences of solar panels. Are they maintenance free ? I have a south east facing roof at the back of the house.


----------



## Zenith63 (26 Jul 2018)

One of the most effective things you can do to reduce your carbon footprint is to swap from beef to basically any other meat. So turkey mince instead of beef mince in chilli/bolognaise, chicken burger when you go to McDonalds. Eat beef when it’s really worth it like at a good steak restaurant, but eating it in crap burgers at McDonald’s is a tragic waste of resources.

Consider a full electric car if you can. We recently swapped to two Nissan Leaf’s and love them! Not practical for all, but way more so than most people think!

By almost every metric, solar is more efficiently done centrally than on all our rooftops, at least until battery storage gets cheaper. So you can get most of the effect, much cheaper, by just moving to one of the green energy companies. Take the saved money and buy an electric car ;-)


----------



## Susie2017 (27 Jul 2018)

I havent eaten beef or mince for years. I have never cooked it in any form for my kids. We also dont buy ham or pork products with the exception of sausages on occasion. We eat fish most days and chicken once a week. I felt put off by meat after BSE, seeing the way the foot and mouth disease outbreak was managed and veterinary practices in particular antibiotic usage in cattle. I know fish may be not entirely safe given the state of our seas but i like it. Will probably introduce more vegetarian products into our menu e g quorn as time goes by. Veggie sausages are good !. Would be interested to hear more about the electric car. I would also like to hear re solar and if possible wind energy installation. I live at the top of a hill and it is quite windy in my back garden.


----------



## Zenith63 (27 Jul 2018)

If you can explain what your car needs, will see if there’s an electric that suits? How many cars do you have, distance travelled daily, frequency of longer trips, number of kids to transport, do you own your driveway etc.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (27 Jul 2018)

Zenith63 said:


> If you can explain what your car needs, will see if there’s an electric that suits? How many cars do you have, distance travelled daily, frequency of longer trips, number of kids to transport, do you own your driveway etc.


 I use my electric car to store energy from the panels I have my own drive way and car is home during the day .if i had not got the electric car, panels would never pay there way when everything is taken to account,


----------



## Leo (27 Jul 2018)

We can leave the car/ transport element to the *Cars, cycling and transport *forum, but unless you're sourcing clean electricity from sources such as PV panels like REITRED2017, then switching to an EV may not make as much of a difference as you think in terms of CO2.

Evacuated tubes heat water directly, photo voltaic (PV) panels generate electricity. The evacuated tubes can work well here as they'll even deliver some energy on overcast days. There are still doubts over whether PV solar panels can pay back the installation cost over their lifespan, especially without grid buy-back being in place where you can sell excess electricity to the grid. 

Other potential changes you can make...

If you have gas or oil heating, if it's not already, get the system zoned so that you can use the boiler to heat water for showers. This will be much more efficient and far cheaper. 

For a wind turbine, do you have a large garden? Turbines can be erected under exempted development so long as the total height from the ground to the blade tip doesn't exceed 13m and the distance from the base of the turbine to the closest boundary is at least its height plus 1m. 

This won't be popular with a lot of people, but if you have dogs or cats, get rid of them. A medium sized dog has a carbon footprint similar to that of a small car.

If you water your garden, or wash your car, then harvesting rainwater makes a lot of sense. It's really cheap and eliminates the need for filtering and treating water to drinking standards just to pour it on plants, etc.. Rainwater is much better for your plants too as the chlorine in mains tap water inhibit growth.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (27 Jul 2018)

Leo said:


> but if you have dogs or cats, get rid of them.



... bit harsh to do that.

All this talk of going green and saving energy/the planet is all for naught if the overall world picture isn't tackled... the multitude of cars on every road in the world, the plethora of planes spewing their exhaust fumes into the sky etc.

I'm all for green, but us individual plebs aren't going to save the planet on our own.


----------



## rob oyle (27 Jul 2018)

Leo said:


> This won't be popular with a lot of people, but if you have dogs or cats, get rid of them. A medium sized dog has a carbon footprint similar to that of a small car.


I'm not sure of the relevance of this point either... other species have their own share of the carbon output on the planet, surely? Otherwise you'd be suggesting to kill all non-human animals?

Now if you were to suggest that we stop BREEDING such animals, that would make sense. There's over 100 billion land farmed animals worldwide and they directly generate a multiple of the GHG emissions of the 7.6 billion humans.


----------



## Susie2017 (27 Jul 2018)

I am happy to move discussion on car elsewhere. I m genuinely interested in both solar and wind. My garden is not large maybe 25 - 30 feet long but is quite wide as I have a side entrance to a detached garage. I didnt realise it needs such a clearance around it. Is that in case it blows over ?  We use gas for boiler and zoning is on my to do list as I have heard it is much cheaper and faster to use gas to heat immersion.  I disagree that individuals cant change the progress of global warming. Everybody must take responsibility. If we do nothing our planet is doomed. It is the biggest threat we face and I am truly frightened by some of the predictions for temperatures in the not to distant future eg regular long heatwaves in the UK by 2040 where temperatures will exceed 35 degrees for months. If we do nothing then we are responsible.


----------



## Leo (27 Jul 2018)

PaddyBloggit said:


> ... bit harsh to do that.



Yep, agreed and I can't see pet ownership being take on in my lifetime anyway. 

I'm no massive green advocate myself, but you could argue that if all us plebs do nothing and wait for governments across the world to prioritise measures that won't see results until after their term or political career is over, then we're all doomed anyway.


----------



## T McGibney (27 Jul 2018)

The logic of equipping our homes with industrialised structures such as solar panels and backyard turbines in order to reduce so-called carbon footprints escapes me. Do people think these things are made of magic dust?


----------



## Leo (27 Jul 2018)

rob oyle said:


> I'm not sure of the relevance of this point either... other species have their own share of the carbon output on the planet, surely? Otherwise you'd be suggesting to kill all non-human animals?



It's relevant to how the choices we all make affect overall carbon output. 



rob oyle said:


> Now if you were to suggest that we stop BREEDING such animals, that would make sense. There's over 100 billion land farmed animals worldwide and they directly generate a multiple of the GHG emissions of the 7.6 billion humans.



I've seen reports that the production of cat and dog food accounts for 25% of the total greenhouse gases produced by all animal agriculture. I was surprise it was so high, so added it for awareness purposes.


----------



## Leo (27 Jul 2018)

Susie2017 said:


> I didnt realise it needs such a clearance around it. Is that in case it blows over ?



Yes, that's it.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (27 Jul 2018)

Susie2017 said:


> I disagree that individuals cant change the progress of global warming. Everybody must take responsibility. If we do nothing our planet is doomed.



Without governments coming together to agree a plan, we're on a road to oblivion.

When I hear of green initititives from ther government, it's usually in the form of more taxes. Charge people more and they'll stop using them. Without affordable alternatives, that will never happen. I'd love to go green with the vehicles I'm driving but there's no green alternative to the jeep I use to pull a trailer. There's nothing strong enough out there.

We are doomed without global action and us plebs will have no significant impact on anything. We can do our little bit of lip service and that will make us feel good inside.

I'm no spring chicken, but neither am I ready to hang up my boots yet, but when I was growing up, most homes had one car (if any) in their driveways. Now it's 3 or 4 cars connected with each home.

My father remembers driving on a main route in Cork and meeting no other vehicle on the road and if he did he'd know one was coming by the reflection on the telephone line. And that was all of 50 years ago. The traffic on the road never stops now.

Where will we be in another 50 years?

Leadership has to come from the top down. Going green has to be seen as a good thing and not something that is continually attracting a tax.

If I could, I'd take public transport to work everyday, but where I live it's not available.

The local recycling centre used to be free to enter to dispose of compost waste etc. Now they charge an entry fee and that has had a negative impact on those who would have used the service but couldn't be bothered now.

Personally, I think it's too late (globally), climate change is happening and meaningful action to tackle it isn't.

When I think of the amount of fumes spewing out of engines today compared to a 100 years ago, I think of a smoker's lungs... eventually the lungs give up.


----------



## Leo (27 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> The logic of equipping our homes with industrialised structures such as solar panels and backyard turbines in order to reduce so-called carbon footprints escapes me. Do people think these things are made of magic dust?



The huge industry that has grown up around micro generation in response to government initiatives conveniently ignores that in their sales pitch. The government is happy as they're seen to be doing something, a good chunk of the grants comes back to them in taxes, more employment is created installing and maintaining these installations, and people are happy thinking they are doing their bit. 

No one ever looks at the bigger picture and works out if the overall result is a net reduction or increase in emissions, or whether the money would be better spent on more efficient centralised schemes.


----------



## T McGibney (27 Jul 2018)

PaddyBloggit said:


> Personally, I think it's too late (globally), climate change is happening and meaningful action to tackle it isn't.



Climate change has, throughout history, always happened. The capacity of mankind "to tackle it" remains open to debate. And while I respect your viewpoint that fumes and other pollution from cars is harmful to the environment, the fact remains that these are far less toxic than they were a generation ago.


----------



## huskerdu (27 Jul 2018)

I agree with the last few posts. 
I feel an obligation to reduce my carbon footprint but I very aware that its contribution to the net reduction in emissions is minicule. 

Back to the OP. 

Solar panels for hot water will not save you money. The cost of installation and maintenance will be more than the electricity saving. 

The best way to reduce your heating / hot water bills is to use less. 

With hybrid cars, I have never seen a comparison of the emissions vs petrol. 

75% of all our electricity is created from fossil fuels and the generation and distribution of electiricity is not 100% efficient ( I have no data on the efficiency). 

So, you should never forget that your hybrid car is burning fossil fuels - just at the electricity generating plant. 

Again - the only real reduction you can make it to reduce your use of the car.


----------



## T McGibney (27 Jul 2018)

Leo said:


> I've seen reports that the production of cat and dog food accounts for 25% of the total greenhouse gases produced by all animal agriculture. I was surprise it was so high, so added it for awareness purposes.



Sounds like fake news. Doesn't make sense on any level.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (27 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> the fact remains that these are far less toxic than they were a generation ago.



but... what I'm trying to say is that these emissions didn't exist a few generations ago. They exist now and they are contributing to an acceleration in climate change.

They may be less toxic now, but the sheer volume of cars, lorries, planes etc. that emit emissions is staggering.



huskerdu said:


> The best way to reduce your heating / hot water bills is to use less.



and turn off the immersion switch. Years ago I was told it was more efficient to let it on rather than to turn it on when needed... the amount of money I'm saving on my ESB bill since I turned it off is staggering.


----------



## T McGibney (27 Jul 2018)

PaddyBloggit said:


> but... what I'm trying to say is that these emissions didn't exist a few generations ago. They exist now and they are contributing to an acceleration in climate change.
> 
> They may be less toxic now, but the sheer volume of cars, lorries, planes etc. that emit emissions is staggering.



Are you talking about carbon dioxide emissions or fumes from vehicles? Your earlier post specifically mentioned the latter.

Of course there were carbon emissions a few generations ago. And vehicles were generally dirty, disgusting and inefficient to a level that we wouldn't accept today.


----------



## Leo (27 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Sounds like fake news. Doesn't make sense on any level.



It's down to the fact that dog food is so highly processed, study published by Lund University, their method and calculations are published here.


----------



## cremeegg (27 Jul 2018)

Susie2017 said:


> Hi all. Am thinking of perhaps installing solar panels.



If you do make sure that you use someone who knows what they are doing to design and install them.

Every day I drive past two houses which have solar panels installed. One house on the left and one on the right, they both have the panels facing the road. Somebody sure didn't know what they were at.


----------



## Susie2017 (27 Jul 2018)

Nice paper above by Lund University. I do not own a dog but I have done in the past. Based on this fact around their carbon footprint I will not get one in the future. I already plan to move entirely to a plant based diet. My family is complete with two children ! Back to the solar panels I am finding it hard to believe that they do not pay for themselves in terms of hot water. The temperature of the water in my garden hose in the last few weeks sitting in the sun was vv hot ! Would be interested to hear from anybody who has them installed and whether they have a buffer tank - where does this go ? I plan on getting some more facts from an installer in the coming weeks. Also found an interesting website of a company that plans to introduce wind power energy generators using oscillation technology (no blades) in the future. They are small compact vertical rods that oscillate and generate energy through wobbling in the wind with no audible noise or maintenance - not available on the market as yet. They are anticipated to be similar in price to solar panels. Does anyone have a wind turbine ? I have seen some on the programme 'grand designs' in the UK but have not seen any in Ireland other than on wind farms.


----------



## Leo (27 Jul 2018)

cremeegg said:


> If you do make sure that you use someone who knows what they are doing to design and install them.



Without grid buy-back here, PV panels should be oriented to align with sun position around peak usage. Little point in having them directly south facing if you have no consumption around lunchtime. Most Irish suppliers favour south facing roofs even though many homes can't make use of most of the electricity generated.


----------



## T McGibney (27 Jul 2018)

Susie2017 said:


> Nice paper above by Lund University. I do not own a dog but I have done in the past. Based on this fact around their carbon footprint I will not get one in the future.



The study's conclusions are still not credible though. The excuse that pet food is highly processed doesn't really wash either. Most animal-based food consumed by humans is processed too. And an awful lot of dogs live on what are effectively vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets.



Susie2017 said:


> Back to the solar panels I am finding it hard to believe that they do not pay for themselves in terms of hot water. The temperature of the water in my garden hose in the last few weeks sitting in the sun was vv hot !



Not unrelated to the fact that we've experienced the sunniest summer in over 20 years. Try it again in October.


----------



## Buddyboy (27 Jul 2018)

Regarding solar panels not paying for themselves..
I have the (oil) heating on for around 1/2 an hour per day this summer to heat the water cylinder. This gives us enough hot water for the day. (admittedly 2 working adults). I'd guess it amounts to less than a euro a day.
You said it would cost you around 4k to have solar fitted. At that rate, even if it was 100% efficient, and I got all my hot water from solar, it would take 4000 days to pay back, which equates to 10 years.
Very simple figures I know, but you get the idea (why I don't have solar).


----------



## Zenith63 (27 Jul 2018)

> Back to the solar panels I am finding it hard to believe that they do not pay for themselves in terms of hot water


I think it's important to realise that there's a difference between 1. something paying for itself for you personally, 2. something that makes you personally greener for the environment and 3. something that helps move the green agenda as a whole forward for everybody.  Working out the cost of the panels compared to the amount you would spend on gas/oil over the lifetime of those panels will tell you whether they save you money personally, addressing item 1 and whether they 'pay for themselves'.  Entirely missing from that calculation is the improvement to the environment and the value you put on that, so if you care about point 2 then this needs to be factored in - would you pay €1 extra per month to know your energy was completely green?  €2 extra?  €20 extra?  And sorry I know this might be quite obvious, but I think your original post was really around how to be greener, not how to make something pay for itself or how much money solar might save you, which is relevant to some people for sure.  Point 3 should not be ignored either however, and that is that while solar panels on your roof might save you a few quid and might make you feel a bit better about using greener energy, it's really not that efficient/cost-effective/green compared to large-scale centralised generation.  So if it's being greener you're after, it's worth considering whether it is better for you to save that money on the solar panels and just buy your electricity from a green energy provider, then take that saved money and do something with it that cannot be done centrally, for example swap to an electric car (typically a little more expensive to buy), swap your petrol mower for an electric, swap to LED lights, buy a more efficient boiler or install a heat pump, whatever.



> switching to an EV may not make as much of a difference as you think in terms of CO2


It's certainly not as good as walking, but there's no real doubt it makes a big difference and as the grid gets cleaner, EVs get even cleaner, whereas the grid getting cleaner has zip effect on petrol cars that are still plodding around.  There's a fair amount of misinformation around about this, but here's a good lifecycle emissions article from a reputable source - https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions



> I'm all for green, but us individual plebs aren't going to save the planet on our own.
> Without affordable alternatives, that will never happen. I'd love to go green with the vehicles I'm driving


We certainly cannot save the planet on our own, but if those that can would swap to electric cars (which I'd bet is >75% of the population of Ireland) that would create the demand for electric cars and you would quickly find the price coming down and a greater range of options for the likes of yourself and towing needs.  Electric cars have wayyy more torque than any petrol/diesel jeep you can buy, there are countless videos of the Tesla Model X pulling 737s and lorries up hills, the price just needs to come down.  This is a classic technology adoption cycle, demand goes up, price comes down, so demand goes up more, rinse and repeat to the point where EVs are cheaper than petrol/diesel.



> When I hear of green initititives from ther government, it's usually in the form of more taxes.


It's worth calling out that the way a carbon tax is supposed to be implemented is that you apply it to carbon emitting goods, so yes the price of these goods goes up, but then you take the money collected and simply give it back to people (as a direct payments, through VAT/income tax cuts or whatever) so the average person will not actually be down overall.  Those who make choices that create more emissions than average will pay more, those who make less will come away with more.  It's actually a pretty cool model if you ask me 



> No one ever looks at the bigger picture and works out if the overall result is a net reduction or increase in emissions, or whether the money would be better spent on more efficient centralised schemes.


With respect, while you may not have seen these questions being asked and answered it most certainly happens.  For example from our very own country - https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/ener...lysis to underpin the new RESS in Ireland.pdf.  Page 36 shows where money would be better spent in-terms of efficiency.  The rest of the paper looks at other stuff like the net reduction in emissions.  There's tonnes of this stuff out there from reputable sources.  There's about the same amount of misinformation unfortunately .


----------



## RETIRED2017 (27 Jul 2018)

cremeegg said:


> If you do make sure that you use someone who knows what they are doing to design and install them.
> 
> Every day I drive past two houses which have solar panels installed. One house on the left and one on the right, they both have the panels facing the road. Somebody sure didn't know what they were at.


It they are PV panels the may know well what they are at the may be positioned to max output when car is home so energy can be stored,


----------



## PaddyBloggit (27 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Of course there were carbon emissions a few generations ago. And vehicles were generally dirty, disgusting and inefficient to a level that we wouldn't accept today.



I accept that, but today we have a massive world population and a massive increase in vehicles, all of which contribute to carbon emissions, exhaust fumes etc.


----------



## T McGibney (27 Jul 2018)

PaddyBloggit said:


> I accept that, but today we have a massive world population and a massive increase in vehicles, all of which contribute to *carbon emissions, exhaust fumes *etc.


I'm puzzled that you conflate the two. Carbon dioxide is a naturally occuring gas, essential for life to exist. It's not a pollutant.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (27 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Carbon dioxide



I'm not talking about carbon dioxide. I was referring to carbon monoxide ... the 'bad' carbon for want of a better word.


----------



## T McGibney (28 Jul 2018)

PaddyBloggit said:


> I'm not talking about carbon dioxide. I was referring to carbon monoxide ... the 'bad' carbon for want of a better word.


The link between carbon monoxide and climate change seems tenuous at most, though. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2291/fourteen-years-of-carbon-monoxide-from-mopitt/


----------



## PaddyBloggit (28 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> The link between carbon monoxide and climate change seems tenuous at most



But still, the link is there: https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-monoxide


----------



## Zenith63 (28 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Are you talking about carbon dioxide emissions or fumes from vehicles? Your earlier post specifically mentioned the latter.
> Of course there were carbon emissions a few generations ago. And vehicles were generally dirty, disgusting and inefficient to a level that we wouldn't accept today.


Curious what your actual argument is here, I'm struggling to understand from your posts if you are just correcting the other poster on their conflation of greenhouse gas emissions and poisonous emissions (a common and not entirely unreasonable mistake)?

Or are you saying greenhouse gas emissions have gone down because cars are cleaner or that poisonous emissions from cars have gone down because cars are cleaner, that latter which is certainly true, but when we know they can go much lower (to zero in-fact) in areas where we are prone to breath them in, I'd ask why we're setting the baseline at a horrifically polluting time in our history and congratulating ourselves for having improved only somewhat upon that?


----------



## T McGibney (28 Jul 2018)

Zenith63 said:


> Curious what your actual argument is here, I'm struggling to understand from your posts if you are just correcting the other poster on their conflation of greenhouse gas emissions and poisonous emissions (a common and not entirely unreasonable mistake)?
> 
> Or are you saying greenhouse gas emissions have gone down because cars are cleaner or that poisonous emissions from cars have gone down because cars are cleaner, that latter which is certainly true, but when we know they can go much lower (to zero in-fact) in areas where we are prone to breath them in, I'd ask why we're setting the baseline at a horrifically polluting time in our history and congratulating ourselves for having improved only somewhat upon that?



My posts should speak for themselves.

There's really no need to look for hidden meanings in them.

And I'm not going down the rabbit hole of answering loaded "Or are you saying..." questions about things I didn't say.


----------



## T McGibney (28 Jul 2018)

PaddyBloggit said:


> But still, the link is there: https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-monoxide


Tenuous all the same.


----------



## Zenith63 (28 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> My posts should speak for themselves


I’m genuinely just curious what your points were, no loading intended though you’re right it totally was loaded .


----------



## PaddyBloggit (28 Jul 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Tenuous all the same.



as you'd say yourself .... next......


----------



## paper-folder (28 Jul 2018)

Susie2017 said:


> Hi all. Am thinking of perhaps installing solar panels.



Hi Susie.  I hope you found the discussion that your question raised interesting, I have enjoyed following it. 
I do appreciate that our individual contributions to both climate change and to going greener can seem minuscule, but hopefully the sum of the parts does become significant.  You only have to look at the impact of the plastic shopping bag levy to see that through combined government and personal effort environmental progress can be made.

We started our energy journey with a BER assessment, and that is what I would recommend for you too.  As others have pointed out, the aim is to reduce your consumption of energy rather than to start generating it.  We completed a list of energy projects in 2010 starting with improved attic insulation, replacement windows, external insulation, boiler controls and thermostatic radiator valves.  Last on our wish list were solar panels and a wood burning stove.  When we got everything priced we were able to afford everything we were looking for so we went for it.  We knew that the solar panels were going to take longest to pay for themselves, if ever, but we accepted that in the context of the overall project and in the face of ever-increasing energy costs at the time. 

If it's any help to you in your decision making, we got 2m2 of evaporated tube solar panels installed on a south facing roof and use them for water heating in a 3 person household.  We were fortunate with the roof orientation, and that the hot-press was directly below that roof, which minimises the pipe-runs.  When the weather is good, they can easily meet all our hot water needs, and with a 200 litre hot water cylinder we even have enough to tide us over if a dull day follows a good day.  We have generally found them to be reliable, we had some initial issues addressed by the installers and we subsequently had one other repair call-out.  We have a dual cylinder which can also be heated off our gas boiler.  The system makes a small contribution to heating the water in winter and on dull days.  We also have an electric shower which is handy on days when the cylinder isn't hot.  Part of our justification for the solar panel was in replacing an old hot water cylinder which was in poor condition and badly lagged. 

You do have to remember if you are generating hot water you have to have a use for it!  For instance our dishwasher only has a cold water intake, so if you continue to use the dishwasher, you will be drawing in cold water and using electricity to heat it, the alternative being to wash dishes in the sink using your 'solar' water. 
There are some concerns around solar heating of water leading to tepid water stagnating in the cylinder and providing conditions that could cause legionella bacteria to develop, so it is important that the water regularly reaches high temperatures and prevents this. 

Sorry for being so long-winded, there is a lot to consider, I hope that our experience helps you in your decision.


----------



## Leo (30 Jul 2018)

Zenith63 said:


> With respect, while you may not have seen these questions being asked and answered it most certainly happens. For example from our very own country - https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/ener...lysis to underpin the new RESS in Ireland.pdf. Page 36 shows where money would be better spent in-terms of efficiency.



Page 36 in that report detail the LCOE, the levalised cost of electricity. Based on that data alone, all consumer grants for EVs, solar, insulation, etc. should all be scrapped.  So if the questions are being asked and asnwered, how do we have quite a range of such grants available? Where are the calculations supporting EV subsidies, or those that apply to air-to-air heat pumps?


----------



## RETIRED2017 (30 Jul 2018)

Leo said:


> Page 36 in that report detail the LCOE, the levalised cost of electricity. Based on that data alone, all consumer grants for EVs, solar, insulation, etc. should all be scrapped.  So if the questions are being asked and asnwered, how do we have quite a range of such grants available? Where are the calculations supporting EV subsidies, or those that apply to air-to-air heat pumps?


Most Subsidies/grants/taxbreaks in Ireland are driven by  lobby groups very few are good value for the taxpayer,Foreign direct investment is one of the few that seam to work fer taxpayers in Ireland,


----------



## Zenith63 (30 Jul 2018)

@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.



> Where are the calculations supporting EV subsidies


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.



> those that apply to air-to-air heat pumps


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?



> how do we have quite a range of such grants available?


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


----------



## Leo (30 Jul 2018)

Zenith63 said:


> @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.



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. 



Zenith63 said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## Zenith63 (30 Jul 2018)

> 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.


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...



> these grants is they don't suit every house, and no consideration is given to that


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.


----------



## Leo (31 Jul 2018)

Zenith63 said:


> As an example, my parents are super interested in electric cars because of the announcement of reduced tolls and the free charging,



Just make sure they know free roadside charging is supposed to be withdrawn... 



Zenith63 said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## Susie2017 (31 Jul 2018)

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.


----------



## Leo (31 Jul 2018)

Susie2017 said:


> 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).



That's not a good feature. Solar water systems need a heat dump to prevent it from overheating in such a scenario.


----------



## Zenith63 (31 Jul 2018)

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 (1 Aug 2018)

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.


----------



## Ceist Beag (1 Aug 2018)

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!


----------



## Leo (2 Aug 2018)

Ceist Beag said:


> 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?



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.


----------



## Buddyboy (2 Aug 2018)

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.


----------



## Susie2017 (2 Aug 2018)

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.


----------



## RedOnion (2 Aug 2018)

Susie2017 said:


> thermodynamic solar energy


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.


----------



## jpd (2 Aug 2018)

Hot water savings - you need to calculate how much hot water you use. In general, the cost of heating water for a small family using a gas or oil-fired bolier will be around € 500 pa. An immersion heater may be a bit more but probably less than € 750 pa


----------



## Susie2017 (2 Aug 2018)

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.


----------



## Leo (2 Aug 2018)

Susie2017 said:


> If i want a bath in the evening i have to turn on immersion for 30 mins



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.



Susie2017 said:


> Iam having a visit today. Salesman keen on a quick visit.



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.


----------



## RedOnion (2 Aug 2018)

Susie2017 said:


> One article says it would save 50% of immersion cost per year


I'd say that should be 'up to 50%'


----------

