ᐅ Photovoltaic Systems: Advantages, Disadvantages, Experiences, and Is It Worthwhile?

Bookstar schrieb:
It is almost the only upgrade possible in a new build and therefore not attractive at the start. Investing in something that only pays off after more than 10 years is at least courageous.

I am very skeptical about photovoltaics.

To ensure good retrofit capability, you should already consider installing appropriate conduit ducts from the roof to the electrical meter cabinet and choose a sufficiently large meter cabinet during construction.

As an engineer, you surely know that good things take time and not everything pays off within a single quarter. The government guarantees income for 20 years, and potential losses are fairly predictable or insurable. As I said, it won’t get much better than this.

What concerns do you have about photovoltaics?

I share a similar view as others. Photovoltaic systems are always worthwhile and offer a good return with low risk, since you are guaranteed to receive payment for your generated electricity for 20 years.

During the construction of our house, we had a conduit installed from the attic to the utility room. We would have liked to do more at the time, but our options were already exhausted.

The (rolling) scaffold cost us an additional 700 euros. In return, our satellite system was relocated free of charge from the west to the east roof.

Honest question to all of you... is it really still worth it compared to 10 years ago?
What about the limitation the grid operator imposes on you, reducing your feed-in capacity? In winter, there is often a lot of snow on it, so nothing goes in there either.

Without a battery, it can already be worthwhile with a heat pump, but only after 10-15 years. With a battery, you can forget it, as the payback period is over 20 years, and who knows if the technology will hold up that long.

Solar panels are a nice thing, but we couldn’t afford them at the time. For me, they are and will remain a luxury.

blackm88 schrieb:
What about the restriction imposed by the grid operator that limits you or your feed-in?

You mean the 70% rule? Over the course of a year, it hardly makes a difference. This rule is based on 70% of the nominal power under optimal radiation conditions. Most roofs are neither perfectly oriented nor perfectly pitched, and even then, the sun must first actually deliver the nominal power to your roof. If your roof isn’t facing due south, you almost never reach 70%, and for pure south-facing roofs there is a soft 70% rule, meaning only the feed-in is throttled to 70%, while your simultaneous self-consumption can make up the difference to 100%.

Ten years ago, feed-in tariffs were higher, but module prices were also higher. While systems used to feed in all their power, today systems are designed to achieve a certain level of self-consumption. This is also why, with pitched roofs, an east/west orientation is often preferred over a purely south-facing roof, which nominally yields more per m² (square meter).

There are two options: a maximum of 70% or participation in feed-in management: 100%-60%-30%-0%...
For a purely south-facing roof, this is the question. In my opinion, a battery in the basement is not cost-effective.