Additional costs equal ZERO

  • Erstellt am 2011-10-11 17:43:20

miliona

2011-11-24 13:06:50
  • #1


Also true.
 

perlenmann

2011-11-25 08:29:16
  • #2
The good thing is, you can make the numbers look good. *Irony on* The state has never changed anything that has been valid for 20 years! *Irony off* Do you already have an investment? You do know that you have to pay tax on income, right? It’s also clear that next year it will be (I think) 4 cents less again? I think everyone really has to decide that for themselves, but to bring a "celebrity" into the game... Daniel Küblböck apparently invested all his money there and did great with it. But that was a few years ago and he had the money in cash. The 3,x% return also did not take into account the elimination of the main annuity repayment, right? The investment might run for 30 years, but the return isn’t gone all at once, it’s steady. The fact that we have temperature increases in the form of heat (solar radiation) might even have a positive effect, but storms might tear the system off your roof. Additionally, the photovoltaic system also has to be insured. (I don’t know the costs) Anyway, for me the risk is not worth it. The best loan is the one you don’t have! And I would rather take the 4.5 fixed for 5 years than a possible 3,x fixed for 20 years. PS: To my knowledge, 8KWp require about 64m² of space in OPTIMAL orientation!
 

€uro

2011-11-25 18:58:50
  • #3
Sure? Then calculate the cooling loads of new buildings. ;-) Photovoltaic systems indirectly make a significant contribution to summer thermal protection, provided they are ventilated from behind and not integrated! This does not appear in any Energy Saving Ordinance/KfW verification or photovoltaic simulation!

Regards
 

Micha&Dany

2011-11-26 08:27:11
  • #4
Hello Perlenmann



Yes, you can, if you want – or you calculate everything badly – that’s just as possible.



True, you’re right there, it *could* do that. However, the probability with the Renewable Energy Act is extremely low. Because the state has no costs in this case. It’s not the state that pays the feed-in tariff but the utility company. (And with that the electricity consumers.) Since you hang around in this forum, I assume you are building a house, want to build one, or have just built one.
If I now think about what changes the state has initiated for homeowners in the last 10 years that can sometimes cost a lot of money, then everyone should rather build 100 photovoltaic systems than 1 house!



Since I also hang around in this forum, it can be assumed that I am in the process of building a roof area for a photovoltaic system. Coincidentally, the space under the photovoltaic system can also be used for living, but that’s really just a coincidence.
And when the roof is finished, I will do exactly that calculation for my roof – taking into account the orientation and tilt, the current system price, and the feed-in tariff. If then a reasonable return comes out, I will definitely install a system.



True, I had already written that – everyone has to decide for themselves. And not only some C-list wannabe celebrities invest in such systems.
As I already wrote, the last two years (2009 + 2010) were record years. Prices fell extremely with a high (too high) feed-in tariff. Returns of 10-12% were the rule, not the exception. Therefore, the government luckily intervened and reduced the tariff. In 2012 it will only be 24.43 cents. That means the tariff was reduced by 43.2% from 2009 to 2012.
Meanwhile, there is a "dynamic cap," meaning the tariff decreases depending on newly installed capacity. The state wants an annual expansion of 3 GW. If the expansion is in this order of magnitude, the tariff is cut by 9%, if it’s below, the cut is less, if it’s above, it can be cut by up to 15%. For comparison: expansion in 2010: 7.4 GW (= 7,400 MW = 7,400,000 kW); 2009: 9.8 GW (= 9,800 MW = 9,800,000 kW); estimate for 2011: 2.8 GW. (All numbers only for Germany and not worldwide! And all numbers without guarantee.)
So don’t tell me no photovoltaic systems are being built *g*



??? I don’t understand now...
I am neither a banker, nor a tax advisor, nor a business economist – I have calculated this to the best of my knowledge and belief *exemplarily* – if you find another mistake, you can gladly keep it.



Whether a storm damages the system depends solely on the quality of the installation. If you look for a cheap provider who has no idea about tensile and compressive loads and for whom statics is just something to eat, well, then your system will fly off the roof in the next storm. If it is installed properly, it will withstand even a Kyrill.



As already mentioned several times – everyone has to decide that for themselves. There is no universally valid “right” or “wrong.”
But therefore, photovoltaic cannot be generally designated as wrong or nonsense. You just have to look carefully here, too.



Yes, about that (maybe even a little less). It depends on the modules used and the roof dimensions.
But the orientation has nothing to do with that – you can also put the system on a north-facing roof – but I can promise you without calculation that the system will not pay off then.

Sunny greetings
Micha
 

perlenmann

2011-11-26 11:54:56
  • #5
@Micha: Yes, I am building. I only asked because you are so absolutely pro. I am also PRO photovoltaics, but not if I need a loan for it!

And that was the point I meant. You take out a loan, plus a second one for the photovoltaics. You have to service both. If I previously had a 1000€ installment, to have the same burden, I now have to pay the installment for the photovoltaics out of the 1000€, which reduces the repayment of the main loan!

And of course YOU need 64m² in optimal orientation to achieve your 97% availability. And not everyone has that!

@€: That was not meant regarding heat protection, but that the extreme weather probably even generates more electricity!
 

€uro

2011-11-26 13:54:26
  • #6
Completely clear, more operating hours, more kWh yield. There is no doubt about that. However, in an overall energy balance, the cooling load gains significantly in importance during the summer heat period. The Energy Saving Ordinance / KfW focuses very one-sidedly and superficially on heating operation in terms of primary energy! Anyone who can reasonably balance understands the background. Photovoltaics not only have the advantage of solar energy generation/savings but also of secondary cooling load reduction/savings! One-sided disregard of existing effects also leads to the wrong final result! Best regards
 

Similar topics
09.04.2013Is financing a photovoltaic system unprofitable?11
08.01.2016Photovoltaic system: self-consumption rate with battery and further questions27
13.07.2016Photovoltaic storage - experiences? Tips?17
20.10.2017Roof with photovoltaic or other investment, any experiences?19
19.06.2018Photovoltaic system in new construction: Would you install one? Any experiences?31
12.01.2019Will the Energy Saving Ordinance from 2021 make new construction unaffordable?27
24.07.2019Energy Saving Ordinance 2016 or KFW 55 for bungalow with air-water heat pump & controlled residential ventilation, optional photovoltaic47
09.09.2019Where is it most worthwhile to exceed the requirements of the Energy Saving Ordinance?14
02.03.2020Is a photovoltaic system also sensible in the west or east?78
10.11.2021Photovoltaic system: Costs, saving potential? - Experiences?240
18.12.2020Install photovoltaic power storage yes or no?53
12.04.2021Is the construction project affordable? 570 k€ loan with a 5300 € salary144
31.01.2022Consultation for photovoltaic systems227
27.10.2021Photovoltaic system 120 sqm living area - cover the entire roof?45
25.03.2022Switching from gas to solar / photovoltaic with / without heat pump31
03.09.2022Photovoltaic system offer for our single-family house162
10.05.2022Buy a house with equity and loan, renovate through property sale24
08.05.2023Evaluation of Photovoltaic Offer and Components34
05.05.2024PV system for the whole roof or better to undersize?14
27.09.2024PV system offer including storage - Storage yes/no?44

Oben