Misleading Sunday Times Article on PV

[The Solar King]

Just received this from the STA:

"Many of you will have read the recent Sunday Times article in the Money section titled “Has the sun set on solar power?”. This is a very frustrating and biased article, riddled with errors, misstatements and in some cases, misrepresentation, in particular of the EST position. Please be assured that the STA has every intention of responding to this article to give us the opportunity to rectify the errors and present the facts. Meanwhile, Ian Cuthbert who is Microgeneration Manager at the EST has issued a response to the Sunday Times clarifying that he was misquoted. I have copied his response below.

In addition, the Renewable Energy Consumer Code (RECC formally REAL) also provided information to the Sunday Times, referencing their website. The article talks about the 30 complaints in 2009 (3 years ago) compared with the 1,130 in 2012, without referencing that installs increased significantly from approx. 12k to 201k in the same period. Teresa Hunter was directed to publicly available information on the RECC website, notably section 8 of the Annual Report Annual Report - Scheme - Renewable Energy Consumer Code (RECC) , and also the Summary of complaints Complaints Received - Monitoring - Renewable Energy Consumer Code (RECC) .

It was clearly pointed out to Teresa Hunter that the number of complaints per install has not changed, and remains around 0.5% of PV installs.


The STA will be responding to the Sunday Times article.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response from EST

Sunday Times article – “has the sun set on solar power?” by Teresa Hunter, 19 May 2013.

In response to your email in relation to the article above we would like to clarify a few points in relation to the role of the Energy Saving Trust in this article. Firstly, the tone of this article was set in the first few sentences in relation to complaints about solar PV and we understand the journalist approached us on the back of statistics received by RECC. We were asked by the journalist writing this piece a number of questions in relation to solar PV which we answered. However, the references made to the Energy Saving Trust were not a true reflection of what we said. Specifically,

·Solar panels being a “gamble” – we have been misquoted on this. We did not say solar PV is “more of a gamble”.
·Data used – this has been misrepresented. Our figures for solar PV costs are based on a 3.5-4kW system costing around £7k. See:Solar electricity PV (photovoltaic) panels explained - benefits, costs, savings, earnings, suitability


We have raised this with the Sunday Times.

We carry out interviews with print and online media on a regular basis and you can be assured that we will continue to be advocates for solar PV using the best available evidence available in terms of advice and data. However, when dealing with the media there are incidents from time-to-time such as this and we will always correct a journalist should we believe there are any inaccuracies.

We hope this clarifies for you our position on the matter.

Regards

Ian Cuthbert
EST"

So the slime balls in the Murdoch press are still at it. Just need the Daily Express to print some hysteria and that will make a nice set of three.

 

[SibertSolar]

What's new?......

 

[Uklad]

The company i work for is suffering from an overly biased piece of crap like this, we have been labeled as a company ripping the public off when the reality is without the cost saving using our systems they would loose other services.

 

[SolarCity]

Does anyone have a link to the article that I don't have to pay to read?

 

[puddy]

I am not sure how to write this but here goes: 0.5% of members on this forum told lies stating if you had free panels fitted on your roof like me, that it would change my freehold to leasehold. I was told I was mad to enter in to a contract like this as I would never be able to sell my home etc. This is where journalists get hold of this incorrect information which they then write in papers like the Daily Mail.

 

[TedM]

Does anyone have a link to the article that I don't have to pay to read?

See Sunday times hatchet job on solar

 

[TedM]

I am not sure how to write this but here goes: 0.5% of members on this forum told lies stating if you had free panels fitted on your roof like me, that it would change my freehold to leasehold. I was told I was mad to enter in to a contract like this as I would never be able to sell my home etc. This is where journalists get hold of this incorrect information which they then write in papers like the Daily Mail.

Are you sure? 0.5% would be more than 40 people.

 

[Ian-LS]

That article is completely misleading just what the author is complaining about some companies overstating what customers can receive under the FI scheme currently.

I've had to calm down after I read the full article. Its one of the worst articles I have read on Solar PV.

 

[SolarCity]

To be fair, I don't think it is as bad as the Daily Mail rant but it it is still utterly ridiculous and biased.

Here it is in full:


HOUSEHOLDS have been left frustrated after paying thousands of pounds for solar panels on the promise of huge savings that have failed to materialise.
Complaints about solar panels have soared from fewer than 30 three years ago, to nearly 1,130 in 2012, according to the latest figures from the Renewable Energy Consumer Code, set up to protect customers from rogue traders.

That number could climb even higher given the sharp drop in payments paid to households for generating their own electricity, known as the feed-in tariff.

Why? Surely any complaints about the feed-in-tariff are frivolous if they are aimed at the installers themselves. The FIT rate is irrelevant to an installer's ability or desire to judge a system's performance accurately.

The government is cutting this payment again for newly installed schemes from the beginning of July from 15.4p to 14.9p per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity generated, below the typical 15p cost of a unit of electricity.

The FIT rate dropping below the typical 15p cost of a unit of electricity is irrelevant. The cost of electricity and the FIT rate are unrelated - except that the FIT rate IS likely to drop as the cost of electricity rises. Why would anyone expect any different? This journalist seems to be confused as to what the FIT actually is.

Experts are warning consumers to think carefully before having panels installed. Ian Cuthbert, microgeneration manager at the Energy Saving Trust, said: “Installing solar panels is now more of a gamble.”

Appears to be a misquote. It is certainly incorrect. Installing solar panels is not a gamble by any measure. Not a single one of our installations has failed to meet predictions and most have far exceeded them.


The £18bn a year renewable energy industry is plagued with bad practice, according to a review by the Office of Fair Trading. Nearly one in five complaints to the Renewable Energy Association is about misleading information where data was inflated to show better returns, or where customers have not been placed on as favourable a tariff as they were promised.

£18bn a year? Certainly not the PV industry (I wish....). And if this figure were even slightly accurate, would this not mean that just over a 1000 complaints would mean it was an astonishing success?

Property damage during installation, and other technical problems triggered 11% of complaints, with a similar number relating to the installation of different systems or orientation from what was stated in the contract.

However, the Renewable Energy Association was eager to defend the industry’s record. It said: “There was a sharp rise in installations in 2011, and there was also growing awareness of the code, so the increase is not a surprise.”

The news comes following concerns about the government’s green deal scheme, which allows households to take out long-term loans to pay for energy efficiency measures including solar panels. The loans are attached to the property.

And the relevance to complaints in the solar industry is what exactly?

Last week the Building and Engineering Services Association warned of early reports that rogue traders were cold-calling homeowners seeking upfront administration fees to assess whether homes are suitable for the scheme. It warned that homeowners should use only authorised firms that carry the quality mark.

Case study: ‘I wouldn’t rush into buying again’
Pippa Allen, 57, installed solar panels at her home in St Davids, Pembrokeshire, in 2009 and qualified for a tariff of 45p compared with 15.4p for new schemes today. Though the income has lived up to expectations, at about £900 a year, she has faced problems such as her installer going bust, leaving her without a warranty. “I certainly wouldn’t rush into it at today’s feed-in tariff,” said Allen, an economist. “Securing a new mortgage was more problematic as some valuers think panels damage the appearance of a property. Also, we’ve been trying to sell the house and the panels don’t help.”

So her big issue here is that her installers' business went ---- up? Really? Her system IS performing as expected but her pesky installers have gone and done something silly like go bankrupt.

How do solar panels work?
The most common type of panel are photovoltaic (PV) ones, which convert sunlight into electricity that you sell back to your energy supplier according to the current feed-in tariff.

This was set deliberately high at 43p per kWh of electricity generated when introduced in 2010, and topped 45p for a time. Households enjoy free electricity when the sun is out, and any surplus they generate can be exported back to the grid at 4.6p a unit.

At this price, typical households received all their electricity free and were paid more than £1,000 a year on top.

Contradiction on the way......

A typical 2.7 kilowatts peak solar system was more expensive then, at £12,000, but subscribers were able to break even after 12 years and lock into this level of income, with a promise that it would keep pace with inflation for 25 years.

However, the government was forced to reduce the rate paid to households. The highest now is 15.4p a unit, the lowest 7p. The top tariff changes quarterly, and is due to fall to 14.9p on July 1.

Even on the highest tariff, the total income and energy bill savings has fallen to between £500 to £600 a year, although the cost of installation has also come down to about £7,000.

£860 a year on the system I am currently designing, at a price of £6,350 all in.

It is also worth remembering that installation is not your only expense. Your system is likely to require maintenance costing £1,000 every eight years, or £125 a year.

Likely?! Most inverter manufacturers now have 10 year warranties and from what I am being told, most of these manufacturers expect their product will last 20 years at least. It is likely that inverters will cost a lot less when the time comes to actually replace them. £125 a year is an utterly fabricated number which has no relation to the reality of our customers.

Therefore, if lucky, you could break even after 16-and-a-half years, but under the new system your tariff is guaranteed for only 20 years, allowing less than four years for profits to flow, which might give you a top-up of £1,500.

16 years?! At current electricity prices, sub-8 year paybacks are common. The reality is that with rising electriciy prices, the payback will be far quicker.

According to the Energy Saving Trust, the panels should last 25 years or more.


Am I guaranteed to make money?
Far from it. For maximum generation you need a south-facing roof and the pitch must be right — 45 degrees is ideal. The property also needs to be in a sunny location, with Cornwall among the best locations and the Shetlands among the worst.According to the Energy Saving Trust, a north-facing system could produce an income of only £300, or less. At this rate you might not even cover your installation costs.

Okay, that was an interesting way to answer the kind of question a 10 year old would ask.

"Am I guaranteed to benefit financially from a decently designed PV system"
Answer? As sure as the the sun shines.

Of course not all roofs are suitable for a PV installation but do the readers really need to be told that? It's like telling someone in a block of flats that they shouldn't have a conservatory built or that someone living in a lighthouse can't have a lost conversion.


Will I get free electricity?
No. Solar panels generate electricity only during daylight hours. If you are at home during the day, then you can enjoy whatever you generate, as well as receiving the feed-in tariff. However, when the sun goes in you will have to pay about 15p a unit.

Will I get free electricity? YES!!! Just because you don't get free electricity all of the time doesn't mean that the stuff you get isn't free.

If I walk into a bar and the landlord tells me that all the beer is free during daylight hours, then it is free beer. If I decide to buy some beer after hours, it doesn't change the fact that I have been consuming FREE beer.

Will I get all of my electricity free? NO!

Are there other pitfalls?
Plenty. You may need to apply for planning permission, so always check first, and if you do, there will be additional costs involved.

Permission is unlikely to be granted in a conservation area or on a listed building.

Is it? I have not once had permission refused for a PV installation in the unusual instances where it was required.

Also, speak to your mortgage lender. In the early days of solar panel installation, some banks refused to offer loans for homes with panels because of concerns about their appearance and need for ongoing maintenance, which made it difficult to remortgage.

Not a problem that any of my customers has had.

Insurance companies are also likely to be nervous and may increase your premiums if they perceive the risk of potential damage to the building is increased.

What if the firm goes bust?
After the recent shake-out of the industry, a number of installers have ceased trading. This causes a headache for homeowners if they have maintenance problems.

True. But there are still plenty of firms out there which can maintain the systems for a relatively small cost. And it needs pointing out that the risk of maintenance is low. Inverters may need replacing but this is a very quick an straightforward job which should only mean a very small cost.

The Renewable Energy Consumer Code now operates an insurance-backed warranty scheme for both maintenance and deposits. Anyone signing up for panels should check that their supplier is a member of the code.

So are they still worthwhile?
Panels may still be worth considering if you tick all the optimum return boxes, such as live in a sunny area, with a south-facing garden, the right kind of roof completely unshaded and you can maximise your daytime electricity usage.

Completely unshaded? Nonsense.

However, there are other things you can do to reduce your bills, such as insulate your roof, reduce radiator temperature, turn off appliances when you do not need them, and wash clothes at 30 degrees.

At least there is some sense here. But adopting all of these measures isn't going to be enough, unfortunately.

Utterly rubbish article.

 

[The Solar King]

The Sunday Times was once a reputable paper. What ever happened to journalistic integrity? This is slovenly and lazy reporting by some one who couldn't be bothered to get off their fat bottom and actually check the information they had helpfully been given. If they had, there would have been no story, or the story would have been entirely positive.

What I find most depressing is, knowing what we know on this subject, how many lies and distortions are being peddled as news by this tawdry rag on things we know little about?

All papers have their own opinions and bias. I even read ones I don't agree with to know what the enemy is doing. A few still have integrity (Telegraph, Guardian & Independent). The rest I wouldn't use as toilet paper. (bit scratchy as well!)