The Great 'Get Paid To Generate Energy' Hunt

Dave_Fowler

noncom wrote: »

Thanks zeupater and Dave Fowler for the links to the newer calculation and other info. I'll try the figures again when I get a chance.

@grahamc2003: both of our roofspaces face the same direction, approx 30deg East of South. The difference is in the pitch angle, the lower one (on an extension) being rather flatter than the main roof.

Re: the two inverters. I did discuss the options with my installer at length. Although the two strings face the same direction, one being flatter than the other leads to its output dropping off quicker as the sun gets low (and also maybe working better when the sun is very high in summer), so it was calculated that the two strings would work better indpendently than tied together. I assumed that a single inverter with twin MPPTs would therefore be used, but when it came to agreeing the exact detail of the installation the supplier told me that its calculations showed that it would work more efficiently with two separate inverters than with a single one with 2 MPPTs.

I have not got the required knowledge to question this, but as they seemed to be highly professional and trustworthy in other aspects of our transaction, I saw no real reason to. Also, although they did acknowledge that installing two inverters would be more expensive, the agreed quote for the system did not change (ie they absorbed the extra cost of this change of specification which they had proposed) so I was quite happy with that!

Andy

I would be happy to accept the quote for two smaller inverters. Whilst the initial outlay for two inverters may be more than for one with two MPPTs, should there be a failure of an inverter at a later date, replacing one smaller single MPPT inverter would be cheaper. Also a failure in one of the PV strings would be far more obvious when their outputs are available separately, one on each inverter control panel.
Dave F

jackieblack

Doc_N wrote: »

He's right (as always). The legislation provides that:

13. On or before 1st March immediately before the beginning of each FIT year (except FIT year 1), the Authority must publish the FIT payment rate table applicable for that FIT year in accordance with clause 3.3 of Part 1 of Schedule A to Standard Licence Condition 33.

FIT year 1 is the year 1 April 2010-31 March 2011, we're about to enter FIT year 2, so a revised FIT payment rate table has to be published within the next 10 days.

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Excellent. Wonder if it will happen.

Also wonder how the energy companies will calculate payments when part if pre-inflationary change and part post.

Doc_N wrote: »

Good point. Might be worth sending a reading to your power company on 1 April just as a record.

Unless, of course, you feel that post-31 March readings will attract the new rate in full.

I imagine they'll pro-rata it, but if they do you'd probably lose out because of the increasing hours of sunshine.

I've spoken to E-On (my FIT provider) who referred me to Ofgem, who told me its up to each individual provider how to manage it whether to pay the whole quarter at the new rate (can't see that, too easy/simple), pro-rata it, or to request additional meter readings on 31st March/1st April, so I suppose its possible that different provisders will opt to work it differently.

noncom_2

Dave_Fowler wrote: »

I would be happy to accept the quote for two smaller inverters. Whilst the initial outlay for two inverters may be more than for one with two MPPTs, should there be a failure of an inverter at a later date, replacing one smaller single MPPT inverter would be cheaper. Also a failure in one of the PV strings would be far more obvious when their outputs are available separately, one on each inverter control panel.
Dave F

You make some good points, although perhaps I should have been clearer in my earlier post that the system's been up and running since October so it's not a case of trying to weigh up the pros and cons any more. I have got the two inverter system installed, and so far all seems good (when the sun decides to come out for a change.... another poxy 2 unit day today!!!)

Cardew

ali1981 wrote: »

Contact me for fast responce solar quotes [EMAIL="shif@live.co.uk"]spam.co.uk[/EMAIL]

I didn't think people who had just joined(today) could post links/email addresses - this guy did!

Doc_N

Cardew wrote: »

I didn't think people who had just joined(today) could post links/email addresses - this guy did!

So he did. I spammed it a couple of hours ago. You'll have done the same. Surprised it's still there!

jackieblack

Re FIT increase from 1st April, looks like the 41.3p will increase to 43.3p and meter readings will be required 31st March otherwise will be pro-rata'd
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/fits/Pages/fits.aspx

zeupater

All

Price analysis for European manufactured panels is now available for last month and shows that prices continue to fall at a steady rate .... another 2.1% in February to €1.67/Wp (approx £1.42/Wp) with Chinese panels now being €1.41/Wp (approx £1.21/Wp) .....

link .... http://www.solarserver.com/service/pvx-spot-market-price-index-solar-pv-modules.html

Z

juliusceasor

zeupater wrote: »

Hi All


Putting this into context, a 3.96kWp system in Germany would have been fully fitted for an average of around £9147 last year, and both their installers and wholesale supply chain still made a profit, whilst in the UK the comparable baseline seems to be in the region of £14.5k.

I just wonder what the average cost of a 4kWp system would be right now in Germany, probably somewhere between £8.6k & £8.9k would be a good guess ..... makes you wonder, doesn't it ??

HTH
Z

Indeed the average install cost per watt is lower in Germany, but that is for larger sized arrays. For the the typical 2-4kW array size here there is a 10% approximately rise in the cost per watt.

The flip side of this is that there are a number of companies and installers without work or working only for a wage at the present time. The result of too much competition and reduced level of installations.

The effect in the UK would be to limit the number of installers and therefore decrease competition if prices fall too quickly here in the UK, because it will limit the incentive to do so either by a fall in FIT or a fall in profit.

There is a high cost to entry to the market and to remain professional on going cost. Given that the FIT payment made to a client covers the cost of install in around 10 years then I believe the original 2012 review date was a reasonable timescale to review the fit Payment to drive down £/w.
Competition is driving down the prices currently and I suspect you could find prices below the £14.5k you mention now.

There are no real losers in the PV market at the moment, yes there may be a barrier to install for some due to cost but the barrier will reduce within a 12 month period along with the FIT.

SMA - to all those reciting high cost of maintenance over the 25 years of the FIT reducing the ROI well I have good news, SMA predict a 50% fall in the price of their inverters within 5 years, due to improved design, lower cost of production and other factors, in response to Cheaper foreign products, but without the loss in quality and performance.

grahamc2003

juliusceasor wrote: »

There are no real losers in the PV market at the moment, yes there may be a barrier to install for some due to cost but the barrier will reduce within a 12 month period along with the FIT.

There'll probably be tens of thousands of people pushed into fuel poverty over the coming years as a direct result of having their bills loaded to pay for pv and other sim ilar subsidies.

I guess they could be considered losers.

juliusceasor

grahamc2003 wrote: »

There'll probably be tens of thousands of people pushed into fuel poverty over the coming years as a direct result of having their bills loaded to pay for pv and other sim ilar subsidies.

I guess they could be considered losers.

I appear to have posted this in the wrong thread.

I agree there will be those that pay and not benefit initially and on whom a disproportionate amount of income goes on energy, I am one of them. Fortunately there are schemes to help the disadvantaged so I don't think it will be as bad as you state, I don't fall in that category, however we need diversification of energy supply and we need to change our energy use. I don't need to watch TV on a plasma screen I don't even need to watch TV therefore I can save energy to use for cooking and heating, which I do.

I do agree the level of subsidies for large scale arrays is reduced it was not the idea behind FIT it is part of the overall aim to reduce carbon which big schemes will do quicker than domestic. But that is an entirely different discussion.