Free solar panel discussion

David_Partington

Gas is the cheapest to build initially and yes quick to fire up to maintain peak demand, but for long term energy security and the planet it's not great. Re- the reply about Thatcher 20 years ago, it is her fault and ours for accepting these policies and yes Labour should have done something, I am no great supporter of what they did while in power. They couldn't or wouldn't do anything to correct what several years of the tories had done, they more or less carried on with the same policies. Unfortunately before they got into power they dropped "clause 4" the commitment to nationalisation, as that is the only way Murdochs "free" press and big business would back them. Nationalisation is now a word people in government are scared of using, "oh no we can't restrict peoples freedom to make profits" Also the committment to privitisation is enshrined in the EU constitution, another reason we need to become independant of the EU.

Jon_Tiffany

digitaltoast wrote: »

Ah, of course, it's Thatcher's fault! I mean, she only left office 20 years ago. And Labour couldn't have done anything over the 13 years they had, could they?

Perhaps Graham from The Grid can correct either you or me here, but as I understood it, gas turbine was one of the most expensive methods, used only in times of peak demand, because of the cost.

Makes me laugh when people blame todays problems on someone who was in control 20 years ago. Labour just carried on with selling everything off. Are you aware of the disgrace of PFI?

My understanding is that gas turbines are cheap to build, not sure about what they cost to run.

dapri

Poosmate wrote: »

I've just worked out my electric bill (averaging over the last 27 months). It works out to £372 per year.

Am I right then in thinking, that if I had solar panels fitted and didn't change the way I use my electiricity, that the FiTs payments would cover the bills and I'd have some left over?

Plus, I'd be exporting most of the electric generated during weekdays as I work full time. I wouldn't set timers for midday because I don't know if a big black cloud is going to shroud my house at any time during the day. I'd be really miffed if I set the timer on a glorious morning only for one of those dark angry summer storms to appear half way through the day! No. The plan of action would be to use the washing machine at the weekends when it's sunny so I'd save a few bob using "free" electric then.

So I wouldn't be expecting my electric bills to reduce by much if anything but I'd be relying on the FiTs and export fee to cover the payback.

Is that reasonable?

Would the payback be quicker?

I have a new digital meter (fitted in Jan 2008) so it wouldn't run backwards.

Is it more profitable to export as much generated electric than to try to use as much as possible (given that that would be hard being at work)? It's got to be hasn't it?

Actually, if I changed my tariff to a more suitable one (I'm on economy 7 atm and haven't been making full use of it, I've been naughty and have been using my washing machine before the night rate kicks in!), so I do use more electric on the more expensive day rates.

Sorry, I'm rambling, it's late and I need to get to bed!

Anyone elses thoughts would be appreciated.

Poo

Hi, My view is that depending on the FiT contract you enter in to it would be more beneficial to maximise the internal use of PV energy - basically if on a standard tariff (come to Eco7 later) you probably pay around 12 pence per unit on average, so avoiding importing energy saves 12pence per unit - the export fee is only 3 pence so you are 9p to the good.

Some of the 11 licensees of the FiT require an export meter be installed to acurately measure the export - which could be beneficial if you have very low summer consumption for example - off the the French Gite for 4 weeks of the summer He He ... or for normal mortals with two weeks in Benedorm it's probably better to select one of the 11 who make the 50% assesment.

So by being paid 50% of your total generated power at 3 pence per unit and consuming more than 50% of the PV energy by doing as you say - maximising the energy consumption during periods of peak power you get paid for more than you export!

The main benefit is clearly the FiT and that is why with access to funds I would always go for your own system, the 12 pence import avoidance benefit will indeed be available to everyone however.

Typical 3.8KW system in a good orientation will produce around £1,500 in revenue and benefits (you must have an MCS approved calculation to be sure!!) and will cots around £15k to purchase so in the first 9/10 years or so the savings will pay back the investment, after then the benefits really kick in for 14 / 15 years or so - particularly as electyricity will probably cost more and RPI impacts the FiT rate.
Economy 7 is a great tariff - but you do need to manage the day time useage to best advantage - you could be paying 5 - 7 pence for overnight units but probably 14 - 17 pence for day time units so beware.

Economy 7 can work with running a heat pump of course - but that's another can of worms!

Finally only analogue meters around 15 years old or more can go backwards and one of the FiT applications asks the question !!

Hope that helps
Dave

David_Partington

digitaltoast wrote: »

Ah, of course, it's Thatcher's fault! I mean, she only left office 20 years ago. And Labour couldn't have done anything over the 13 years they had, could they?




Perhaps Graham from The Grid can correct either you or me here, but as I understood it, gas turbine was one of the most expensive methods, used only in times of peak demand, because of the cost.

Sorry forgot to put quotes in people will be wondering why I'm going on about Thatcher. We need some new blood in charge to undo the damage done from 79 on.

David_Partington

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

Makes me laugh when people blame todays problems on someone who was in control 20 years ago. Labour just carried on with selling everything off. Are you aware of the disgrace of PFI?

My understanding is that gas turbines are cheap to build, not sure about what they cost to run.

Right on both counts, I'm not a new Labour supporter but Thatcher started it, I blame it on Thatcher and Labour for carrying it on and the electorate for accepting it. What I am saying is the philosophy of privitising service industries is wrong and it was started by Thatcher. We need to undo this now if we can.

dapri

Spies wrote: »

So you need an old style mechanical meter to make real savings?

Hi, the solar PV benefits stack up regardless in my view - however the backwards spinning meter should be seen as a short term additional benefit (typically an additional 12 pence or so per unit for each unit exported)

The hard part to grasp can be that all PV energy will go to the point of nearest demand - it is a feature of electrical distribution dynamics - so if you are outputing 1 kw from the PV array and consuming 400 watts in the home (fridge radio or freezer for example) the balance of available power will find it's way to the grid thereby exporting the 600 watts - if sustained for an hour this represents 0.6 of a KW or 0.6 of a unit, you will be paid for exporting this and if the meter runs backwards as well your next bill will also be reduced by 0.6 x the tariff rate - around 0.6 x 12 pence - but only until the power companiies wake up.

Regards
Dave

Jon_Tiffany

digitaltoast wrote: »

Tell you what, why doesn't someone post a picture here of their monitoring box showing overall and current generation?
Pick mid-day on a sunny day if you want. That's my challenge.

it was generating 450 watts. That's less than one quarter of a kettle.

The day someone can show me a solar pv installation which will have a hope of paying for itself before the end of the cell lifetime *on its own merits* (ie: not grossly subsidised by little old ladies with east facing roofs) is the day I'll retract all the above.

Until then, show me the stats or stop spouting gibberish!

Your point about the kettle is a little misleading. Lets say that it takes 0.1kWh to boil a kettle.

http://www.which.co.uk/reviews/kettles/page/faqs/
http://saving-energy.suite101.com/article.cfm/gas_or_electric_kettle_which_is_greener_to_use

Your solar panels are only producing 450w, but they are doing that throughout the day. After 1 hr you have generated 0.45kWh - enough to boil a kettle at least 4 times with some left over.

A solar panel will pay for itself in terms of embedded carbon in around 3 years according to HomeSun:

http://www.homesun.com/faqs/other-questions/

Even if you said they were optomistic and you doubled that to 6 years, I that is well within the 25 year lifespan.

A solar panel will pay for itself financially without FITs, it just takes a very long time. This is the whole reason why the FITs were introduced - to shorten the payback time.

grahamc2003

digitaltoast wrote: »

Ah, of course, it's Thatcher's fault! I mean, she only left office 20 years ago. And Labour couldn't have done anything over the 13 years they had, could they?




Perhaps Graham from The Grid can correct either you or me here, but as I understood it, gas turbine was one of the most expensive methods, used only in times of peak demand, because of the cost.

Just to clarify, I've now retired and everything I say is on my own behalf.

Yes, GT were much more expensive to run than conventional stations. This can be taken as a fact because when the generating companies had to bid to generate, the bids put in for GTs were sometimes much higher than conventional. The grid chose the cheapest generation to schedule, with the most expensive bid setting what all generators got paid for that period. Although that system has now been supersceded, you can infer pretty positively that GTs are more expensive to run. The reason tyhey are now being built is the build costs, which are much cheaper and quicker.

On another point raised, Thatcher can't be blamed for the almost certain shortfall of capacity to come. Privatised or not, the government dictate virtually every move the energy supply industry can make (a good example are the FITs - engineering madness since they are a high cost subsidy to a very inefficient method of generation and, worse still, a subsidy from the poor to the rich). The (free market, denationalised) suppliers simply have no choice but to implement the system however engineeringly insane it is. When the government decide Nuclear needs building (which they are certain to at some stage, because there is no alternative), then they will simply, one way or the other, force generators to build them, just as they have stopped them being built for the last 40 years, and just as they have forced wind turbines to spring up all over the place. The participants may control the day to day minutiae, but the overall generation build/generation subsidy/the meters we have fitted in our homes/the quilty of electricity generated/ the costs the suppliers may pass on to cutomers and all important decisions are controlled by the government. (They want solar panels - they get them, they don't have to make any sense).

Jon_Tiffany

David_Partington wrote: »

Right on both counts, I'm not a new Labour supporter but Thatcher started it, I blame it on Thatcher and Labour for carrying it on and the electorate for accepting it. What I am saying is the philosophy of privitising service industries is wrong and it was started by Thatcher. We need to undo this now if we can.

David, I agree with you 100%, especialy the bit about the electorate for accepting it. The problem that we now have is that everything has been sold off (mainly to foreign companies), we are broke with huge debts. Hardly in a position to buy back assests, even if the will was there.

mickess

Gizmosmum wrote: »

Who installed for you and what size panels?

I used a local company from Newmarket. (I live in Cambridge). I have a 3.8kwp system installed and am very happy with the price of around £13500 I paid for the installation. I found that the local companies gave better prices and more honest information than the big boys. But of course you don't have the supposed back up that a large company would offer. I figured that even if the inverter failed it was still worth while. Anyway if it did it's more or less a plug in item which I reckon any competent DIYer could replace.