Climate Change

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 15° London Hi 15°C / Lo 8°C

Solar panels 'take 100 years to pay back installation costs'

By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent

A study suggests that solar panels are less cost-effective in saving on heating bills than loft and wall insulation

GETTY IMAGES

A study suggests that solar panels are less cost-effective in saving on heating bills than loft and wall insulation

Solar panels are one of the least cost-effective ways of combating climate change and will take 100 years to pay back their installation costs, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics) warned yesterday.

In a new guide on energy efficiency, Rics said that roof panels for heating water and generating power are unlikely to save enough from bills to make them financially viable in a householder's lifetime. In the case of solar panels to heat water for baths and showers, the institution estimates the payback time from money saved from electricity and gas bills will take more than 100 years – and up to 166 years in the worst case.

Photovoltaic (PV) panels for power – and domestic, mast-mounted wind turbines – will take between 50 and 100 years to pay back.

Given that the devices have a maximum lifetime of 30 years, they are never likely to recoup the £3,000 to £20,000 cost of their installation, according to Rics' building cost information service. Instead, it suggested people wanting to cut fuel bills should insulate lofts and cavity walls, install efficient light bulbs and seal windows.

Joe Martin, author of Rics' Greener Homes Prices Guide, said there was an argument for installing solar panels but it was not an economic one. "We wanted to bring some reality to this because there are a lot of missionaries out there. The whole push for household renewable power is that you can do these things and make back money but that's not true on existing property," he said.

The solar power industry accused Rics of failing to take account of the rising cost of energy and other financial benefits of renewable power in its figures. Jeremy Leggett, of Solar Century, said: "They are grossly irresponsible."

Rics assessed the cost, annual savings, disruption and payback time of various energy-saving methods and gave each an overall rating of one to five stars.

Solar panels for heating and power and wind turbines generating between 3kW and 5kW merited two stars. Smaller 1.5kW turbines of the type installed on roofs paid back in 25 years, received a three-star rating.

By contrast, cavity wall insulation had a five-star rating: spending £440 would save £145 a year in fuel bills, paying back in three years, while an investment of £325 in extra loft insulation would save £60 annually, paying back in five years.

The figures were compiled before energy companies put up bills by up to 30 per cent last month and ignore state subsidies.

Last year, the Department for Trade and Industry slashed grants for the installation of household renewable power by 83 per cent, infuriating the fledgling micro-generation industry which complained the move rendered solar panels unaffordable to all but the wealthy.

Jeremy Leggett, executive chairman of Solar Century, complained that Rics' figures failed to assume any rise in energy prices, when a conservative estimate of 10 per cent a year would transform the calculations.

In addition, Rics had failed to take account of a number of other benefits – renewable obligations certificates worth £160 a year to householders from next year; reductions in energy consumption of up to 40 per cent for schemes with a meter; the rising payments from energy companies for spare electricity put back into the national grid; and the increased value of an energy-efficient home.

He estimated the current payback of power-generating PV panels was 13 years.

Rics countered by saying it had not taken account of maintenance costs and that it deliberately chose not to include "ifs" in its figures. "I doubt however you do the sums, they [solar panels] make sense," a spokesman said.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Solar Panels take 100 years to pay back Installation
[info]colinru wrote:
Wednesday, 28 January 2009 at 09:10 pm (UTC)
Solar Century are the ones being irresponsible with their claim of a 13 year payback. I have designed and costed PV systems and never had one pay back in anything like this period.

As for energy costs rising 10% per annum - only if we do not build many more Fission Power stations.
Re: Solar Panels take 100 years to pay back Installation
[info]wayne57 wrote:
Thursday, 23 April 2009 at 08:39 pm (UTC)
Given the latest technological advances, what is the current payback time frame. And what is the current cost of construction start to finish per MW, say based on a 5 to 10MW solar farm.
THX Wayne
Re: Solar Panels take 100 years to pay back Installation
[info]colinru wrote:
Monday, 31 August 2009 at 12:33 pm (UTC)
I posted some info for you in April but have just realised that it is not on the site. I cannot remember all the links that I gave to you after all this time but, in summary, the designs that I did were small scale items like remote telephone relay cabins on tops of mountains so I cannot give you costs per MW of installed capacity.

When I did my work in the 90s and also, at present, I believe that Solar PV is still significantly more expensive than Coal or Gas but only slightly more than Nuclear Fission Power. The Economist Newspaper did a study on the costs a few months back, if you can acccess it at www.economist.com

Their conclusion was that Solar PV was not economic but that Concentrated Solar Power using reflectors to boil water or another heat carrier was economic in the MW range - but using heat storage to keep production going at night made it relatively uneconomic.

Apologies that you did not receive my original reply.
Re: Solar Panels take 100 years to pay back Installation
[info]taraff1 wrote:
Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 07:45 pm (UTC)
I built my own solar panels for under $100 that are currently powering my 1700 Square Foot home using the plans at:

http://ambigrid-review.blogspot.com
Solar can be inefficient - if you choose to do it wrong
[info]tony_bahhumbug wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 01:34 am (UTC)
The fact that Rics "didn't include 'ifs'" suggests a very sloppy approach. There are many different scenarios for installing solar power, some of which make sense and some of which are ludicrous. PV panels in Britain is obviously useless however you look at it: we don't get enough sun; PV and support electronics are expensive; and 70% of electricity in the UK is used for climate control. Solar heating is a whole different story. Install flat-plate collectors and you'll get some benefit, but perhaps a longish payback period. Spend a bit more on evacuated-tube technology and a proper heat-storage tank, AND of course some insulation so that the heat you collect isn't wasted, and the benefits are astounding. The problem is that consumers pay a lot more than the true cost of components, with most of the excess going to predatory installers. For example, 10m2 of tubes and plumbing (enough for a household's entire hot water needs) costs about 2000 pounds wholesale, which would pay back in three years or less if you bought and installed the equipment yourself. If the government were to provide free installation services using proper installation methods, the true cost/benefit would become much more obvious.
Solar Hot Water Panels
[info]2020solar wrote:
Monday, 23 February 2009 at 04:50 pm (UTC)
Solar Hot Water Heating Panels are definitely cost effective so don't be put off by all this negativity.
an investment or not??
[info]dave_l7 wrote:
Wednesday, 25 February 2009 at 08:56 pm (UTC)
Motor vehicles have been chasing an alternative power source to oil for a number of years now and many have looked and even developed electric powered vehicles. When it comes to recharging the power plant they come accros many problems, including time taken, cost and mileage gained on a full power plant,,,, not really an alternative to oil, more of a backward step. There are unlimited amounts of Hydrogen and Toyota and Honda have succesfully developed an alternative power plant, why can't a power plant run on Hydrogen be used to make electricity and the waste product from Hydrogen is water, again this waste can be used for toilet waste and gardens etc.
Just like the Motor industrie may be we are barking up the wrong tree using solar, the cost, the amount of power generated and maintenance costs, and can a old domestice house be converted totally run on free power?????
Re: an investment or not??
[info]mightydrunken wrote:
Friday, 9 October 2009 at 03:02 pm (UTC)
The problem with hydrogen as a power source is that there is no natural supply of pure hydrogen on Earth. This means you have an extra step, which makes it less efficient than simply using electricity.

The problem with hydrogen powered vehicles is at least two fold. One is storage, which is tricky. This is a similar problem with electricity where batteries do not compare to petrol very well either. The 2nd problem is that fuel cells are expensive.

Contrast with an electric car which is simpler and lighter than an internal combustion engine powered vehicle. It does not need gears and an electric motor is 90%+ efficient, where as a petrol engine is ~22% efficient.
If better and cheaper batteries are invented then the extra step of using hydrogen is pointless. The likely hood is batteries will get better. The likely hood that fuel cells get much cheaper and the hydrogen storage and generation problems are overcome in the same time frame seem less likely.
Solar panels
[info]dermot_storan wrote:
Sunday, 1 March 2009 at 09:17 pm (UTC)
I have a narrow boat on which I installed a combination of solar panels and wind generators. And it has been really effective. Combined with LED lighting and efficient refrigeration it is completely self-contained with a pay-back of closer to 10 years depending on battery life. But heating is a different ballgame for everyone and there is no simple solution - other than small very insulated spaces and even then the lack of movement of air is not healthy. Solutions please!
Re: Solar panels
[info]palmersperry wrote:
Saturday, 4 April 2009 at 02:13 pm (UTC)
You could get air movement without excessive heat loss by using an air-air heat exchanger so that the outgoing air was used to warm up the incoming air.
Solar option
[info]msdimple wrote:
Thursday, 2 April 2009 at 07:58 am (UTC)
What if the government thought outside the box for once. Instead of spending billions to build a highly polluting coal-fired power station which won't be online until long after it is needed (and will be obsolete by then), why not take that money and immediately start putting solar panels on all government buildings, hospitals and schools? Give hefty grants to homeowners too just as they are doing for loft and cavity wall insulation. Even in cloudy Britain solar can work. This would help everyone involved reduce electrity use from polluting sources and help the government reach their target CO2 reduction levels. Seems like a win-win to me
Re: Solar option
[info]miss_mxii wrote:
Tuesday, 21 April 2009 at 10:23 pm (UTC)
I agree every government building constitutes lots of buildings so we could hope that they would be independent of the national grid which would free up quite a lot of money which could be used for council homes and other properties allowing an even larger amount of grants for homeowners and businesses to allthough i would target smaller businesses first. :)
Solar panels
[info]petermat wrote:
Friday, 24 April 2009 at 09:10 am (UTC)
As often happens a journalist gets in with a shock headline without understanding the full story.

There are two main types of solar energy devices - Photovoltaic (PV) panels for generating electricity, which are currently uneconomic ( unless you live off the grid) and thermal solar panels which are used to directly heat hot water using copper plates or evacuated tubes which have a payback of 5- 10 years.

This article does not discriminate between the two or even mention that there are two very different technologies. Anybody using PV to heat water would be wasteful and uninformed.

Of course insulation is essential and has the best payback. But some houses do not have cavity walls and once the loft has been insulated they must look down the tree for other technologies.

Please can you get non scientists/ engineers to check their stories with people who have some understanding of the issues before they post alarmist headlines that only tell half the story.

Unfortunately this type of headline panders to the Jeremy Clarkeson school of Climate Catastrophy Deniers who want to prevent progress in the renewable energy sector and leave us subject to the whim of those who still have oil and gas and will be able to charge what they like for it.
You are being overcharged
[info]jasonsole wrote:
Friday, 24 April 2009 at 06:05 pm (UTC)
I own a alternative energy company in South Africa www.gwstore.co.za, we install vast quantities of solar, wind, hybrid (solar and wind) and hydro power. Reading this article was interesting but lacked any sense of reality.
I suppose if you had prince charles and a cast of celebrities install your system for you, it could cost that much and yes, with that sort of pay back period, but in reality we can kit out a system in South Africa for much much much less. If we can do it on the dark end of the African continent for less then I must assume that a nation such as the UK could do it more efficiently.
Yes I am aware that labour costs are higher, but way that up with technology costs being lower plus some government incentives.
That said also bear in mind that there is a carbon factor in the equation as well. 0.978Kg of Carbon per Kw of energy (In SA anyway), this factor with energy savings should bear considered.
solar panels
[info]lin_d3an wrote:
Saturday, 9 May 2009 at 10:35 am (UTC)
In a sense they may not save money in the way people might hope but its helping ease the future prices from rising to fast for people to cope with. In reducing the amount used, that can help slow the process of the rise of prices in fuel which needs to be saved in order for the process of changing from petrol and deisel cars to hybrids and electric. It can also help prices in places such as shops stay low as they may not be able to get solar panels installed and have to rely on good old fashioned coal, oil and gas. If the price of fuel goes up then prices of products will need to go up in order to compensate for the bills they have to pay.
Solar Panels take 100 years to pay back Installation
[info]walrus9 wrote:
Monday, 18 May 2009 at 12:14 am (UTC)
t's not about saving money, it's about saving the environment
Re: Solar Panels take 100 years to pay back Installation
[info]office2001 wrote:
Tuesday, 20 October 2009 at 02:51 pm (UTC)
It's not about saving money and it is not about saving the environment. It is about being independent from the grid.
Missing the whole point!!
[info]tallguy1000 wrote:
Tuesday, 26 May 2009 at 11:21 am (UTC)
It seems that people have forgotten that as well as the damage that we cause from burning fossil fuels, we are actually running out of them!! We rely heavily on coal and gas powered power stations in the UK and as supplies diminish - prices will increase. You would be foolish to think that fuel bills will only rise with inflation, it is not unreasonable to assume that in 10 to 15 years time that fuel bills could be 10 times higher than they are now. Also, as a fledgling industry (solar and wind) prices are quite high as production costs are high but like anything else, as popularity and demand increase then prices will fall exponentially. So with fuel prices set to rise and as installation of renewable energy supplies decrease it quickly becomes a more viable option. Rics have not taken into account the fact that we NEED to do something now and people need to be encouraged to spend now to ensure prices fall for future consumers and for the sake of our enviroment and our children. Nuff said!!
not true
[info]amcoms wrote:
Tuesday, 4 August 2009 at 10:34 am (UTC)
these figures are made up
really?
[info]mariusrs wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 02:52 pm (UTC)
Is there any data to backup the 100 years ? If there is, yes is a lot and doesn't seem a good decision to pay for solar panels.
If there isn't, then the 100 years is just BS.
Marius
Solar PV
[info]perry525 wrote:
Saturday, 12 September 2009 at 05:54 pm (UTC)
Most of this gear is imported from China.
China have reduced their prices by 50% recently.
This reduction has not been passed on to the consumers.
The sellers and installers are making a fortune.
This article was posted in March 2007
[info]archipet wrote:
Sunday, 11 October 2009 at 10:40 pm (UTC)
I don't understand why this misleading article is STILL listed on the Independent website. It's main claim is false. I wrote to Joe Martin when it was first published and pointed out the errors in his calculation of payback time. He replied, acknowledging that his figures were wrong, but never published a retracton. It is astounding that this newspaper continues to carry this deceptive article.
solor panels take 100 years to pay back installation
[info]911con wrote:
Thursday, 29 October 2009 at 11:27 pm (UTC)


global warming? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

what do you think?

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date