RICS: 'Solar panels 100-year payback timescale'

ujoni08 · Post by **ujoni08** » 10 Jun 2011, 10:35

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/06 ... y-math.php

'[...](T)he Independent reports that a British organization, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics) is taking aim at some sacred green cows, claiming that in economic terms, solar panels take 100 years to pay back. The group claims (rightly) that insulation, weatherization and other energy efficiency measures should come before solar. But solar advocates claim that their math regarding solar itself is way off—and they too, appear to have a point.

The biggest bone of contention for solar advocates like Jeremy Leggett—CEO of Solarcentury—is that any meaningful calculation can be made without taking into account future price rises. (The math was apparently based on rates prior to a 30% price hike from utilities that has already occurred):

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'.

Jon

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 10 Jun 2011, 14:55

What's the payback on a tile/slate roof? Surely it would be cheaper to tie a tarpaulin over the house, and replace it every so often. And what's the payback on an entire house? Surely it's more cost effective to live in a cardboard box. You can get free ones out of a skip!

Mean Mr Mustard · Post by **Mean Mr Mustard** » 10 Jun 2011, 16:30

What's the payback if our other BAU investments, denominated in fiat currency scrip as they are, devalue to bugger all?

ujoni08 · Post by **ujoni08** » 11 Jun 2011, 22:50

Agreed.
Jon

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 12 Jun 2011, 02:43

I thought that that RICS report was an old one. The Treehugger report is based on an Independent article from 2008!!

An Inspector Calls · Post by **An Inspector Calls** » 12 Jun 2011, 08:45

JohnB wrote:What's the payback on a tile/slate roof? Surely it would be cheaper to tie a tarpaulin over the house, and replace it every so often.

JohnB: that's absolutely right: using tarpaulins would be much, much cheaper than a slate roof. You have a winning idea here! And perhaps a startling new clarity into the subject of project finance analysis.

So why are other people so stupid/thick that they don't just do that that?

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 12 Jun 2011, 19:05

As I don't buy gas or electricity, can someone tell me how much they have gone up in price since that report was written in 2008? It might point out the shortcomings of project finance analysis in an era of high fuel price inflation. Any analysis that doesn't take into account the comparative future running costs of two projects in the current climate is not worth the paper it is written on.