whtara

Indeed it could be rolled out. That is causing me a small (but worthwhile) delay. I have now had a further email from SCC (I could send it to you if you contact me "at" live cook...if you see what I mean - "cook" needs a little bit of added punctuation). There is, in their own words "no established procedure for applications of this type because we've never had one before". Well, only half of that statement is true. They have had several (perhaps many) such applications in the past...but this is the first one that they have paid attention to. Accordingly they are developing a procedure so that future applicants will have an easier ride than me. They have already recognised that this can be rolled out. So... Their engineers have been out to check the integrity of my (their) roof. And have given it the OK to carry the extra (quite minor) weight. The thing is currently with the City solicitor's office with a recommendation from Housing who suggest that the procedure should include things like Installer's accreditation, underwritten guarantees (not warranties), structural integrity and the like. A further complication (a nice one which is not delaying my application because it will come later) is how to include this in the existing "Right to Improve". There might need to be a change in primary legislation to achieve that but it would be a simple matter. A Statutory Instrument rather than an Act of Parliament. However, all parties i.e. SCC, installers and, of course, me want to get this exactly right first time so that there will be an established procedure (similar to that for a tenant making a currently allowable improvement). And naturally, that procedure could easily be adapted by any Local Authority. Currently my biggest problem is getting appropriate installers. Since the protocol must balance the position of all three parties a one man band installer might not be able to hold his own in setting up the protocol fairly. I happen to be a (now retired) lawyer so I can easily hold the tenant's end but I have only so far found one potential installer who is capable of both the installation AND establishing a fair procedure. Even though I am seeking installation of an array on just one (my) roof, it is almost as if I will have to follow the council's full tendering process. Luckily for tenants I am very familiar with that procedure because I have been on SCC tendering panels before. Including the ones who selected Kier for repairs and the one that picked the panel that selected the 5 companies for the Decent Homes work. Obviously it would not be appropriate to state (in a public forum) which comany I have put on my shortlist. If you do contact me... ---------- Post added 25-08-2013 at 15:25 ---------- Oh, and one further thing. Someone did ask whether installers tell "porkies". Actually they do. Some naughty, some not so naughty. The naughty ones revolve around that you have to hurry because the FIT is reviewed and possibly changed every two months...and that their system is better than everyone else's! But one lie that is only slightly naughty is, actually, beneficial. It is quite techie... Modern solar panels are very efficient. Efficiency ratings of 95% are easily possible. Inverters are a different matter. An inverter is a gizmo that changes low voltage DC into higher (230) volt AC. You can even buy one for your car! (about £15 to get 230v in your car). Inverters are strictly limited as to the current they can carry. So on a very sunny day in mid June the power provided by the panels will exceed the transmission capabilities of the inverter. The excess power will simply be dumped as heat. (Which is exactly what would have happened if all the solar power (in the absence of any panels) had just hit the roof and warmed it up). That means that the installer can easily tell you the maximum possible output from the system they are selling. That is where they tell the porkies. There reasoning for lying) is simple. They offer a guaranteed output for the lifetime of the system and that is where they become VERY conservative. Over 20 years, efficiency will drop to, perhaps, 85%. So they quote using 80% from day 1. This lie actually improves the true financial return. They also protect themselves by assuming that every year will be like the very rainy 2012. Many people think that a solar panel needs sunshine. All that is required is light. Sun provides more light on a clear day, solar panels are far more efficient at low temperatures than at higher temperature. So, counter-intuitively - a bright blue sky on a freezing November day could produce more energy than a bright blue sky in June! As I write on this cloudy day I am getting more power than my proposed system can handle (there would simply be a dump of the excess power). To protect their guarantee the salesman quote for the worst scene scenario. A dull rainy year in 20 years time with a couple of failed panels. Failed panels are a vital topic but this post is already long enough. Just go for dual micro inverters. If anyone asks I will explain. What all this means is that a system will FAR outperform the figures given by a salesman.