ᐅ Is a solar power system worthwhile? Experiences?

dellino schrieb:
...2. The cost-effectiveness – true, you can still take advantage of subsidies – if they are still available.

The initial question was: Is a solar system worth it? Here, cost-effectiveness is presumably meant. In the case of single-family homes, this is generally not the case! A slightly improved market incentive program (MAP) hardly changes that at all! (MAP – Market Incentive Program – who is it really intended for?)

From a primary energy perspective, however, the situation looks completely different! Every solar thermal system is worthwhile here! I welcome every solar thermal system others install on their roofs.
The problem is, operators do not pay for primary energy, but rather for investment and final energy consumption.

Best regards.

Hello Euro,

My ironic words are directed at those who only ask for subsidies and the representatives who sell subsidies but do not know their product or cannot present the real benefits. I believe you are capable of assessing the situation correctly yourself. Sometimes you just need to add a bit of color to make something stand out more clearly. MAP aside – I am not a politician and I do not belong to any party, so I am neutral in that 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 have purchased an inefficient system and then go online to cause a fuss. It’s similar with subsidies. Often, you would be better off with the more expensive offer than with the cheapest one plus numerous additional costs. But that’s not a problem – because these people just wanted a cheap offer (without planning) – whatever it costs!

To illustrate the problem in a more German way: many are looking for a Volvo but want to pay for a Dacia. Ultimately, everyone has to learn this lesson and pay their dues themselves.

Regarding cost-effectiveness: this cannot be predicted for solar systems because it depends on rising energy prices. One fact is certain: when energy prices increase, material and transportation costs also rise. As a result, any system built before the price increase is more effective and therefore more cost-effective. If oil costs 0.20 EUR (about 22 cents) per liter (and consequently everything else) in five years, achieving good economic efficiency will be difficult! So, you need either a fortune-teller or an economic expert – everyone else can calculate the rest for themselves. What I wanted to say here (as an explanation) is: anyone who builds or commissions such a system must be convinced that it is right for them – similar to mutual funds or stocks – because the risk must be borne individually – just like on the stock market. However, there is a difference: on the stock market, you can lose everything; with solar, you still save some – more or less.

You mention system planning and heat load calculation. That’s correct. The problem is that energy consulting is required and subsidized without mandating a heat load calculation – that inevitably leads to misunderstandings by clients. Do you have your electrical installation checked by a professional every four years? There are regulations for that too. The problem in Germany is that craftsmen and homeowners are bombarded with contradicting and duplicate regulations! Yet the legislators are too timid to really enforce these! Because then they would have to prosecute these… – because often these regulations are pointless when you consider nuclear accidents, flood damage, oil spills in the sea, and so on.

Conclusion: If citizens recognize that something is useful to them, they will accept it. Discussing CO2 is pointless if, for example, “CO2-neutral letters” are delivered by the post office using combustion engine vehicles…! This is my own personal opinion, shaped by my own experience. It is not intended to criticize or discriminate against anyone 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 and compensated accordingly. In this whole discussion, the question for me is what type of house we are talking about. If it is already an energy-efficient house, a solar system on the roof would certainly be worthwhile, but the impact would not be as significant.

dellino schrieb:
Hello, there is increased funding available, which is great. If you are looking for funding, that’s all fine – just tell grandma to cover the rest and then proceed with the implementation. Oops, a red funding light – well then just tell grandma she’ll have to pay the funding as well. No craftsman wants such dreamers. So, wake up! 1. Efficiency/performance/technology is important, 2. profitability – yes, you can still take advantage of funding – if it still exists then. Those who ask about funding first fall into this trap and will surely find some good salespeople – or don’t you want a solar system just because your neighbor has one? If a technology is profitable, it sells itself based on its benefits without funding.
Regards

Great contribution!
Just because something is trendy doesn’t mean every politically correct nonsense makes sense. High subsidies are primarily a profit model for suppliers. This is clearly illustrated with photovoltaic funding. Every reduction in feed-in tariffs led to a sharp increase in system costs in the preceding six months. After the reductions, procurement costs mostly fell below the original investment.
So Dellino is absolutely right in prioritizing these points. First, consult experts (not just energy advisors) to verify the necessary and sensible technology, then look for funding.
Any other approach makes it too easy for pure subsidy sellers and usually leads to higher overall costs.
Oh, and yes, due to the 2009 Energy Saving Ordinance, domestic hot water heating is unavoidable in new builds; therefore, we will also install such a system on the roof. Without funding, but expensive.

JoS schrieb:

Oh, and yes, due to the 2009 Energy Saving Ordinance, you can't avoid installing a domestic hot water heating system in new buildings anymore, so we will also have such a system on the roof. No subsidies, but expensive :o

That's not entirely accurate. Perhaps that's true if you're using gas, but since we only have renewable energy, specifically a heat pump, you don’t need a system on the roof.

schalsascha schrieb:
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 public grid and compensated accordingly. The question in this whole discussion is what kind of house we are talking about. If it is already an energy-efficient house, a solar system on the roof would certainly be worthwhile, but the impact would not be as strong.

You are comparing apples and oranges here.
What you describe is a photovoltaic system (electricity generation) whose installation in the past represented a win-win-win-lose situation.
Manufacturers and installers benefited from extremely high feed-in tariffs, which led to strong demand. Customers benefited only after approximately 10 years if the system was financed, or it was a great deal for those who built it entirely with equity. For them, there was no better capital investment in terms of security. The "loser" in this situation was—and remains for the next 20 years—the average consumer without a photovoltaic system: they effectively subsidize others through price increases caused by the feed-in tariff law.
Be aware that this situation ended in June 2011 with a further reduction of the feed-in tariff to 25.8 cents per kWh.
Now the difference compared to the retail electricity price is actually too small.
What happens if the guaranteed feed-in tariff rate for 20 years of 25.8 cents is below the actual billed electricity price? Exactly! A politically correct loss is produced. Unless—and I’m not sure—there is a minimum margin, meaning the feed-in tariff would then be increased. I don’t believe that.