Is a solar power system worth it, experiences?

...2. the profitability - true, you can still take advantage of the subsidy - if it still exists.

The initial question was: Is a solar system worth it? It can be assumed that profitability is meant here. This is not the case in the majority of applications in single-family homes! A slightly improved MAP hardly changes anything about that! (MAP - Market Incentive Program - who is that probably intended for?)
From a primary energy perspective, however, it looks completely different! Here, every solar thermal system is worthwhile! I am happy about every solar thermal system that others install on their roofs.
The problem, however, is that the operator must pay for investment and final energy, not primary energy.

Best regards

Hello Euro,

my ironic words are directed at those who only ask for subsidies and representatives who sell subsidies and do not know their product and cannot present the real benefit. I think you are capable of assessing the situation correctly yourself. Sometimes you just have to use some color to make something appear more contrasting. MAP or not – I am not a politician and do not belong to any party – so I am neutral in this regard. What I cannot understand, however, is that people still choose the CHEAP offer only to end up paying 50% more (50% without judgment please) upon completion or having purchased an inefficient system and then make a fuss about it on the Internet. It is similar with subsidies. Often, one would come off cheaper with the expensive offer than with the cheapest one with x additional demands. But that is no problem – because these people only wanted a cheap offer (without planning) – at any cost! To put the problem in more German terms: many are looking for a Volvo but want to pay for a Dacia. Ultimately, everyone has to gather these experiences themselves and pay their own tuition fees.

Regarding profitability. This cannot be predicted for solar because it depends on rising energy costs. But one thing is a fact: if energy costs rise, material and transport costs also increase. From this, it follows that every system built before the increase becomes more effective and thus more economical. If in 5 years the price per liter of oil (and thus everything else) is 0.20 EUR, good profitability will be hard to achieve! So you need a fortune teller or economists – everything else can be calculated by everyone themselves. With this I just wanted to say (for explanation): everyone who builds or has such a system built must be convinced themselves that it is right for them – similar to funds or stocks! Because the risk must be borne by everyone themselves – just as on the stock market. However, there is one difference: on the stock market, everything can be gone, with solar you still have a smaller or larger saving! You write, for example, about system planning and heat load calculation. That is true. The only problem is that an energy consultation is required and subsidized without having to provide a heat load calculation – thus misunderstanding by clients is preprogrammed. Do you have your electrical installation checked by a specialist every 4 years? There are regulations for that too. The problem in Germany is that craftsmen and homeowners are bombarded with contradictory and duplicate regulations! But the legislators are really too cowardly to insist on this! Because then they would have to ... (prosecute) these – because often these are pointless, if you consider, for example, nuclear accidents, flood damage, oil in the sea, etc.

Conclusion. If the citizen realizes that it is useful for him, it will be accepted. Discussing CO2 is pointless when, for example, "CO2-neutral letters" from the post are delivered by combustion engines…! This is my own personal opinion, formed by my own experiences. It is not intended to criticize or discriminate anyone, not even personally.

Best regards

In my opinion, a solar system pays off after a few years. The electricity generated by a solar system on the roof is fed into the general grid as is well known and is accordingly compensated. The question that arises for me in the whole discussion is what kind of house it is. If it is already an energy-efficient house, a solar system on the roof would certainly be worthwhile, but would not have such a strong effect.

Hello, there is higher funding, which is great. If you are looking for funding, that’s all fine – then it’s best to already tell grandma that she should pay the rest and then proceed to implementation. Oops, a red funding light – well then just tell grandma that she also has to pay for the funding. No craftsman wants such dreamers. So, wake up! 1. Efficiency/performance/technology is important, 2. profitability – yes, you can still take advantage of the funding – if it is still available then. Whoever asks about funding first falls into this trap and will surely find some good sellers – or don’t you want a solar system if the neighbor has one? If a technology is economical, it sells itself because of its benefits without funding. Regards

Great post! Just because something is en vogue doesn’t necessarily mean every politically correct nonsense also makes sense. High subsidies are primarily a winning procurement model for suppliers. This can be perfectly illustrated by the example of photovoltaic funding. Every reduction of the feed-in tariff led to a very strong increase in system costs in the six months beforehand. After the reductions, the procurement costs mostly fell below the original investment. Dellino is therefore completely right with his prioritization of points. First, have experts (not just energy consultants) check the necessary and sensible technology, only then look for funding. Any other approach makes it too easy for pure subsidy sellers and generally leads to higher overall production costs. Oh, and yes, due to the Energy Saving Ordinance 2009, you can no longer avoid domestic water heating in new buildings, so we will also get such a system on the roof. Without funding, but expensive.

Oh, and yes, due to the Energy Saving Ordinance 2009, you can't avoid domestic hot water heating in new buildings anymore, so we will also get such a system on the roof. Without subsidies, but expensive :o

That’s not quite correct. It might be true with gas, but we only have renewable energy, i.e. a heat pump, so you don’t need a system on the roof.

In my opinion, a solar system pays off after a few years. The electricity generated by a solar system on the roof is, as is well known, fed into the general grid and compensated accordingly. The question that arises for me in this whole discussion is what kind of house it is. If it is already an energy-saving house, a solar system on the roof would certainly be worthwhile, but would not have as strong an impact.

You are comparing apples and oranges here.
"Yours" described is a photovoltaic system (power generation) whose installation in the past represented a win-win-win-lose situation.
Manufacturers and installers benefited from the extremely high feed-in tariffs due to the strongest demand. Customers benefited at the earliest after 10 years for financed systems. Or it was a super deal for him if he had built it out of equity capital. Then there was no better capital investment for him in relation to security. The "loser" in this situation was and is for the next 20 years the average person without a photovoltaic system – he pays for the subsidy of others through the price increases caused by the feed-in law.
Attention: this time is over as of June 2011 – another reduction of the feed-in tariff to 25.8 cents per kWh.
Now the difference to the purchase price is actually far too small.
What happens if my guaranteed feed-in tariff rate for 20 years is 25.8 cents below the billable electricity price -> Right! A politically correct loss is produced. Except – and I do not know this – there would be a certain minimum spread, meaning the feed-in rate would then be raised. I don’t believe that.