Free solar panel discussion

Equaliser123

digitaltoast wrote: »

Yeah, that was my point. So, you have a go at me for being calling one person something, but you then go and call them a "muppet" because you assume they don't know that PV doesn't work at night?

Hypocrite much?

No. There is a real difference between understanding the basics of solar PV and that which was quite aggressive and uncalled for earlier in respect of of another poster's point of view.

Can you not get that?

BrummyGit

grahamc2003 wrote: »

You've missed the largest risk from my pov - the single one which would make me decide not to go near a 'free' system, and that is the risk these things will go out of favour at some stage over the next 25 years.

You appear to be risk averse, and yet you are effectively gambling with your largest asset - your house. When you come to sell, you have to find someone to take on the balance of your contract (or buy it out at punitive rates) - if they are out of favour (old technology, inability to develop roof space, or a multitude of other possible causes) then your largest asset may have to take a price hit to sell. I'm not saying it will, I'm saying that is a risk you are taking, and a risk you seem to discount or not even know about giving your 'risk list').

You are correct - I recognise this risk. I currently like the idea of Solar and would probably have bought a system at some point, but took the decision that I can buy my system at a known cost at any point in the lease. So for as long as I choose, they carry the remaining risks and get their share of the spoils from FiTs, but if I decide to buy the system then I can - but of course I become liable for maintenance and insurance. This was one of the reasons for choosing HomeSun - they give linear depreciation over the 25 year 3 months period so whenever I choose to opt out, I can do so and take the remainder of the benefits. This allows me to sell my home without a lease if I change my long term plans and move.

John_Pierpoint

Gizmosmum wrote: »

I do get a bit upset when people talk about those installing pv as "rich".

I know it's all relative but I've worked my socks off for nearly 30 years and instead of drinking, bingo-ing and eating what I've earned I've saved. I'm now penalised because I have some savings by extremely low interest rates and my thrift of the last few years is allowing me to purchase my eco-bling. I'm not rich, I earn a reasonable living but still can't afford to eat out, go to the cinema or the pub. I chose to spend my money the way I did, I'm not complaining, but I don't actually see many "rich" people installing where I live.

This is the major problem with "eco" improvements to homes.
If I can afford the mortgage on a 1,000,000 GBP house, the difference in my outgoings, from installing cost effective improvements to save carbon pollution (INSULATION) is negligible.
As the improvement is largely invisible I don't even get any kudos for doing it.
Much more fun to spend spare money on a 150 MPH sports car.

John_Pierpoint

digitaltoast wrote: »

The PV FiT WILL NOT MEAN ONE LESS COAL FIRED POWER STATION IN THE UK.

Surely it could mean at least one fossil fuel power station going off line on a sunny summer's day?

The only power stations that can never be turned off completely are the nuclear ones. With ever improving weather forecasting techniques, I'm sure the guys managing the grid can say "Tomorrow the PV systems will be generating "x" MW tomorrow, so we can manage without the following suppliers........
Given an intelligent grid, it should be possible to manage demand as well as supply.

We talk glibly about "the grid" when in reality it is not uniform and is subject to bottle necks, so perhaps generating power rear to its consumers would save of infrastructure investment?

broke_mother_of_students

Apologies; I'm afraid I am one of the posters who asked questions about purchased units rather than free panels and really appreciated the advice from Gismosmum and others. We are in the process of arranging an installation and still have a few questions. I'm not too savvy at finding my way around the forums, so please would someone point me in the direction of the relevant threads, mentioned recently in the posts.
Many thanks.

PS. Is it necessary to attach weight and measurements as well as my qualifications to future posts?

Nang

digitaltoast wrote: »

Nope, still no go. Excess supply leads to over-frequency and over-voltage. At which point a generator is forced to "drop off", the financial penalty for which is fairly high, which includes the long re-start cycle.

Have a look at this gauge and read the stuff below:

http://www.dynamicdemand.co.uk/grid.htm

Not wanting to sound patronising or anything, but you appear to be missing some very basic fundamentals about how the grid and electricity works. I've posted some links to FAQs and stuff above. Do take the time to read them, it's fairly essential to being able to follow the arguments for and against any form of generation.

Not sure if they still do them, but large power stations used to do trips round them. I've toured Didcot (coal), Sizewell (Nuclear), Hoover Dam in the USA (hydro), one of the world's largest wind turbine farms near Palm Springs (USA) and a geothermal facility in New Zealand, and I got the pics to prove it too (except Sizewell, no cameras!).

So, with that an my two years at The Grid, I think I might just have picked up a little knowledge about the subject...

OK so I slept on this and given it some more thought..

It sounds to me like the grid is the show stopper in terms of making use of the domestic solar electricity generated.

So what I have been thinking is, could we instead wean the array owners (by this I mean houses with panels on the top) from the grid in the summer months?

Looking back though the output figures I have (April to Sept), I reckon a house with a 4 kw array would need about a 1/6 (roughly) the capacity of a Nissan leaf (electric car), to go almost off grid most of the summer.

Let's say we rolled this out to the 2000 ASG homes, then we would have 2000 homes that almost needed almost no power station elect for 6 months of the year. That mean less burning of coal, right?

In the times they do need a bit of power to prop them up, we could maybe use some of the peak supply generation alternatives you described.

So you are probably "thinking 2000 batteries that's daft imagine the infrastructure required to manufacture refresh all those" but it occurs to me that if we are going the way of electric cars (petrol aint gunna last forever) then the necessary infrastructure would be in place anyway.

What do you think?

Cardew

broke_mother_of_students wrote: »

Apologies; I'm afraid I am one of the posters who asked questions about purchased units rather than free panels and really appreciated the advice from Gismosmum and others. We are in the process of arranging an installation and still have a few questions. I'm not too savvy at finding my way around the forums, so please would someone point me in the direction of the relevant threads, mentioned recently in the posts.
Many thanks.

There are a lot of threads in the 'Green and Ethical' section of MSE.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=100

PS. Is it necessary to attach weight and measurements as well as my qualifications to future posts?

A photo will be just fine;)

Cardew

Nang wrote: »

What do you think?

You lose your FITs if you go off grid.

I think you are taking DigitalToast's comments too literally. I suggest what he means is that the unpredictability of solar generation makes it difficult to manage.

Essentially there are two ways to manage the grid; by controlling the power being generated and/or managing the power being consumed.

There are many ways of managing the latter, from minor steps right down to the steps being taken in Japan right now - disconnecting whole districts(Blackouts) because they have shut down several power stations.

There are also methods to limit power consumption in homes remotely by the power distribution companies.
I have a place in the USA and I am paid a small fee to allow water heater and Air Conditioning/heating to be switched off for short periods(no more than 30 minutes?). This system is being trialled in UK.

Nang

Cardew wrote: »

You lose your FITs if you go off grid.

I think you are taking DigitalToast's comments too literally. I suggest what he means is that the unpredictability of solar generation makes it difficult to manage.

Essentially there are two ways to manage the grid; by controlling the power being generated and/or managing the power being consumed.

There are many ways of managing the latter, from minor steps right down to the steps being taken in Japan right now - disconnecting whole districts(Blackouts) because they have shut down several power stations.

There are also methods to limit power consumption in homes remotely by the power distribution companies.
I have a place in the USA and I am paid a small fee to allow water heater and Air Conditioning/heating to be switched off for short periods(no more than 30 minutes?). This system is being trialled in UK.

Sorry I need to clarify.

I did not mean physically off grid as in disconnect the house, from it. I meant use the power from the batteries rather than the grid (in the evening and such) rather than the grid.

I guess you could still put the excess into the grid when the batteries were full?

I wonder if this idea is going to be difficult to explain..

Cardew

Nang wrote: »

Sorry I need to clarify.

I did not mean physically off grid as in disconnect the house, from it. I meant use the power from the batteries rather than the grid (in the evening and such) rather than the grid.

I guess you could still put the excess into the grid when the batteries were full?

I wonder if this idea is going to be difficult to explain..

How big is your battery room? Well ventilated I hope.

How big is your wallet?