Free solar panel discussion

grahamc2003

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

in-house usage saving of around £54 would likely be the maximum possible saving .... now I'm really getting confused ....

It would be nice to achieve savings such as these, but as a system owner myself I would consider figures such as these to be closer to fantasy than realistic ....

HTH
Z

I think it's called 'artistic licence'.

Either that, or Cath doesn't realise this thread is, or should be, in non-fiction.

John_Pierpoint

Am I right in thinking that the gear box in a wind generator lasts 10 years if one is lucky ?

Mean time to failure of a ground source heat pump is 21.5 years,
and that for a PV panel 25+ years?

cathd6

You can scoff if you like but you've forgotten that I'm the one with the generation data (and paying the bills) so it's pretty arrogant.

More like 3-400 units/month (one unit is equivalent to 1kwh). December and January were particularly sunny which helped - they weren't far behind (or as good as) months you would expect to do well. The snow slid off as soon as it hit - we were the only house around with a clear roof!

Maybe better revise your guess of 500 units / quarter.

As for the amount we use, we moved into an old house with ageing appliances and electric showers. Replacing as we go along which is quite easy with the FIT payments, and in 8 years time we'll have recouped the initial investment. :beer:
Our solar thermal panels are also, unexpectedly, providing almost 100% of our hot water needs.

As a further correction, I didn't start a discussion about wind power - someone else did and I only gave an example of Denmark when ridiculous things started to come up about the viability of renewable energy targets, that needed blowing out of the water immediately. I understand perfectly that there is variability in wind power generation, just as I understand that the sun rises in the east but have no memory of disputing that one either! If you're bent on having a disagreement with me, I'd politely venture that you'd have more success in addressing what I said rather than sticking up straw men.

Back to the subject in hand, neither do I dispute that this is not cheap technology, but I think I've addressed that more than adequately. It's not like comparing brands of cornflakes. And working by candlelight is denying the inevitability of rising energy prices, increased demand on fewer resources and climate change.

I just find it sad that people feel that there must never be progress because it requires imagination and investment. There are always plenty of agendas for the status quo. I'm sure the pensioners moving into their passive houses next month would go a few rounds with you if they could be bothered - they'll probably be out buying pints of mild instead of gas!

digitaltoast

cathd6 wrote: »

You can scoff if you like but you've forgotten that I'm the one with the generation data

Actually, no you're not:

cathd6 wrote: »

I'm not going to post my bills

And when I asked you to show me a link to the place you said George Monbiot had been so resoundingly debunked, you said:

cathd6 wrote: »

I'm not going to waste my time doing web searches for you

- but surely, you'd have those details to hand?

And when I asked for the name of the council whose new "passive houses" you were trumpeting the benefits of, you said:

cathd6 wrote: »

nor am I going to let you know where I live

Not like I asked for a street name - a county would do. I know of only 2 such schemes, Birmingham and Bournemouth. One of them?

Don't you find it odd that in my posts here I've backed all my arguments with links to peer-reviewed publications, well-respected academic bodies like the University of Cambridge, the DECC's white paper on the whole sorry FiT mess, the National Grid generation data tables and so on. You have failed to provide ONE SINGLE PIECE of evidence to support your hyperbole.

You believe Monbiot is wrong on this. Let's put you head to head.
Fill in the gaps: Your relevant qualification is.. ____________

And now let's do George:

In 1995 Nelson Mandela presented him with a United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement. A radio programme he produced won a Sony Award for best documentary.

He has held visiting fellowships or professorships at the universities of Oxford (environmental policy), Bristol (philosophy), Keele (politics), Oxford Brookes (planning) and East London (environmental science). He has honorary doctorates from the University of St Andrews and the University of Essex and an Honorary Fellowship from Cardiff University.

You also appear to be at odds with David McKay, author of "Without Hot Air". Here's a bit about David:

David MacKay FRS is a Professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Cambridge. He studied Natural Sciences at Cambridge and then obtained his PhD in Computation and Neural Systems at the California Institute of Technology. He returned to Cambridge as a Royal Society research fellow at Darwin College. He is internationally known for his research in machine learning, information theory, and communication systems, including the invention of Dasher, a software interface that enables efficient communication in any language with any muscle. He has taught Physics in Cambridge since 1995. Since 2005, he has devoted much of his time to public teaching about energy. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society.

Nine months after the publication of 'Sustainable Energy - without the hot air', David MacKay was appointed Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Even CAT, the centre for alternative technology, don't recommend it, saying:
"photovoltaic solar electricity is an expensive technology with high up-front capital costs, and often other investments offer better environmental benefits per pound spent"

Additionally, both myself and Graham here have worked for the national grid. I have visited one of the world's largest wind farms near Palm Springs, a geo-thermal plant in New Zealand, the Hoover Dam, and toured Didcot and Sellafield etc. Not saying "oooh, look at me", but with all the combined experience of the people I mentioned above, with the personal industry experience and expertise of people on this forum, what makes you think all the skilled, relevant people are so very very wrong and you, trained in linguistics, are right?

cathd6 wrote: »

I've not posted anything that is not correct

Do you believe in homoeopathy by any chance? Just wondering...

cathd6 wrote: »

it matters very little to me if you don't believe me (For links you could do worse than starting with the publication Monbiot links to himself though...) Everything there is easily verifiable. The problem is that it demands a certain flexibility of thinking.

I just find it sad that people feel that there must never be progress because it requires imagination and investment.

My emphasis on the above, but interesting phrases you use there - "imagination", "flexibility of thinking". That's precisely what something which is going to be an ENORMOUS drain on the UK economy and drag more people into fuel poverty does NOT need. It needs sound, solid, evidence-based, research-driven thinking.

And if you're to be believed, it needs you to post evidence. Until then, you'll just be another in a long and draining series of self-deluding idealists who'll make the evidence fit the curve. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but over the last 7 years I've been studying renewables, I've seen it time after time after time. Have a look back through this thread and see how many times someone has said "I've saved x" or "I'm making x", then look what happens when someone asks for the proof. They up and vanish like a fart in the wind, to quote Shawshank.

So, prove me wrong. It would be a refreshing change.

zeupater

cathd6 wrote: »

You can scoff if you like but you've forgotten that I'm the one with the generation data (and paying the bills) so it's pretty arrogant.

More like 3-400 units/month (one unit is equivalent to 1kwh). December and January were particularly sunny which helped - they weren't far behind (or as good as) months you would expect to do well. The snow slid off as soon as it hit - we were the only house around with a clear roof!

Maybe better revise your guess of 500 units / quarter.

As for the amount we use, we moved into an old house with ageing appliances and electric showers. Replacing as we go along which is quite easy with the FIT payments, and in 8 years time we'll have recouped the initial investment. :beer:
Our solar thermal panels are also, unexpectedly, providing almost 100% of our hot water needs.

As a further correction, I didn't start a discussion about wind power - someone else did and I only gave an example of Denmark when ridiculous things started to come up about the viability of renewable energy targets, that needed blowing out of the water immediately. I understand perfectly that there is variability in wind power generation, just as I understand that the sun rises in the east but have no memory of disputing that one either! If you're bent on having a disagreement with me, I'd politely venture that you'd have more success in addressing what I said rather than sticking up straw men.

Back to the subject in hand, neither do I dispute that this is not cheap technology, but I think I've addressed that more than adequately. It's not like comparing brands of cornflakes. And working by candlelight is denying the inevitability of rising energy prices, increased demand on fewer resources and climate change.

I just find it sad that people feel that there must never be progress because it requires imagination and investment. There are always plenty of agendas for the status quo. I'm sure the pensioners moving into their passive houses next month would go a few rounds with you if they could be bothered - they'll probably be out buying pints of mild instead of gas!

Hi

I don't think it's got much to do with arrogance, purely science.

If you seriously got 300 to 400kWh in each of the winter months then it's unlikely that you have a 4kWp system. To counter the defence that December & January were particularly sunny months, well they weren't around here, they were pretty average, with February being appauling which is fully supported by my generation stats and also by the met office (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomacts/) sunshine anomalies for those months, which show that, even in the sunniest regions, pv system performance over the three months in question was likely to be no better than average, and possibly much worse.

PVGIS (http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php) describes the average generation for a south facing 4kWp system in Wembury, Devon for the three months (Dec/Jan/Feb) as being 477(130+146+201) kWh and you're claiming '3-400 units/month' .... utter nonsense, and it should be treated as such ....

If you truely have pv, I wish you well in your production and congratulate you for having taken the steps you have taken and would respectfully ask that you check your figures/assumptions as they are likely to mislead others. If you have no pv and simply post to further the idealistic renewables cause, then you're not doing that side of the argument any favours, therefore please find somewhere else to play .....

HTH
Z

Cardew

cathd6 wrote: »

Maybe better revise your guess of 500 units / quarter.

Why a guess?

Loads of people post their exact amount of generation.

If you say you are generating 300kWh to 400kWh per month, in a winter quarter, you are mistaken!

If you really have a PV system - what was the predicted annual generated output?

cathd6

Nice rant.

I don't know why I'm bothering really, but perhaps you could be a bit more civil and discuss one point at a time? Apart from the unpleasantness I think this is too far from the original topic.

All I would achieve by posting photos / scans of my meters and documentation would be to rub it in the faces of those who don't believe how much electricity we've generated. I've no interest in doing that even if it wasn't a waste of my time. So you are very welcome to continue to disbelieve me if it makes you feel better. We're now, along with other sites around the UK, sending all our data to the University of Sheffield so no doubt you'll be able to read it elsewhere shortly.

The location of the particular development I'm referring to would give you the city where I live, and you could also probably work out more from there. I'm not daft enough to put personal identifiers on messageboards nor should you be trying to get anyone to do so. I'm sure you can work it out based on the information I've given but I'm not going to confirm it when you do. But really, is it so far fetched? We are capable of doing these things now you know.

George Monbiot. There's an awful lot of people who wouldn't have given him the time of day until he wrote that article, and suddenly he's inviolate. (I make no assumptions about you)

All I can do is repeat - the link you are looking for is the one he gave himself (note 12 I believe). All you have to do is go and find out that actually he misrepresented what that source has said about Germany, substantially. I also gave you a search term where you can find plenty of up-to-date info for yourself. It rather reduces my opinion of him, but he's only a journalist so he can get away with it.

Then you go into putting more words in my mouth again.

I'm not spending more than a couple of mins on these posts, nor do I wish to bore anyone unnecessarily (or data-bomb them) - this is a message board, not an amateur thesis and I think that discussion should be succinct, constructive and to-the-point. If you really do want me to answer anything else and genuinely aren't here just to bully and show off your knowledge (or facility with google because let's face it, I can do that back in spades), then one point at a time. Please

By the way, you've made some points previously that I've already pointed out are a bit far-fetched but you haven't returned to them,. Can I assume therefore that you've conceded that we might actually achieve 15% energy from renewables without "every single roof (carrying) a solar panel and every single hill (sporting) a wind turbine." Because I appreciate that you intend to back up all your arguments.

cathd6

Cardew wrote: »

Why a guess?

Loads of people post their exact amount of generation.

If you say you are generating 300kWh to 400kWh per month, in a winter quarter, you are mistaken!

If you really have a PV system - what was the predicted annual generated output?

You're getting mixed up - 500 was YOUR guess!

My response of 300-400 average was not a guess. If you'd prefer to do the sums yourself, 2253/6 months (to end May). And May was worse than December if it helps. Remember, PV is about light, not warmth.

We've also exceeded the forecast considerably, which is nice. The rest of the year will probably be crap.

Sorry - I should also say that the part of the country we're in has irradiation levels far in excess of government SAP (but I think i already mentioned that) Having said that, I've seen similar performance levels in very different parts of the country

cathd6

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I don't think it's got much to do with arrogance, purely science.

If you seriously got 300 to 400kWh in each of the winter months then it's unlikely that you have a 4kWp system. To counter the defence that December & January were particularly sunny months, well they weren't around here, they were pretty average, with February being appauling which is fully supported by my generation stats and also by the met office (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomacts/) sunshine anomalies for those months, which show that, even in the sunniest regions, pv system performance over the three months in question was likely to be no better than average, and possibly much worse.

PVGIS (http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php) describes the average generation for a south facing 4kWp system in Wembury, Devon for the three months (Dec/Jan/Feb) as being 477(130+146+201) kWh and you're claiming '3-400 units/month' .... utter nonsense, and it should be treated as such ....

If you truely have pv, I wish you well in your production and congratulate you for having taken the steps you have taken and would respectfully ask that you check your figures/assumptions as they are likely to mislead others. If you have no pv and simply post to further the idealistic renewables cause, then you're not doing that side of the argument any favours, therefore please find somewhere else to play .....

HTH
Z

Thanks for the polite post.

I genuinely don't have my monthly figures here (and I feel much more inclined to make the effort to show them to you than some others around here! The meter is not far from my seat and I've posted total generated above) but one obvious point from the Wembury figures you've posted above. February is showing far better than December, despite you saying, quite correctly, that it was abysmal. For us, December wiped the floor with February. Are those figures correct?

We have exceeded forecasts for every month so far, so I appreciate that we are doing particularly well. As I've already stated we probably couldn't have a better set-up. It is "only" 4kwp tho - no point installing more than that, is there.

Just to make it absolutely clear (this will probably be ignored by some anyway ), I am making no claims for solar PV beyond my own experience. I said when I posted it that my £100 saving over those months was clearly not proof of anything. Who knows - it could have been that the company were feeling particularly Christmassy or something... my point is that it's just an honest statement to the best of my ability, as I don't keep a spreadsheet with showering times etc. I wasn't expecting the defensive reaction because I thought that this was a site to share experiences and help each other out, not to do battle with different ideologies. I am happy to trust in science and welcome that this is backed with investment. Without that investment we're still burning coal.

grahamc2003

cathd6 wrote: »

I am making no claims for solar PV beyond my own experience. I said when I posted it that my £100 saving over those months was clearly not proof of anything. .

When you first posted the £100 in 3 winter months saving you did not state that it wasn't proof of anything - it was posted (as most of your incorrect views are) as a matter of fact. It was only after I questioned you as to how you know the value of your 3 month saving that you admitted your 'reasoning' to reach the £100 was really of no use whatsoever.

You have made many claims on here related to solar pv and renewables in general. You said storage of energy isn't far away (incorrect in the context you posted), you said wind power penetration is decoupled from fast reserve (not in those words) and in virtually every post you have made you have said what trained and experienced people know to be false statements. It is only the total lack of knowledge of these subjects which seems to give you the confidence to simply carry on regardless when it is pointed out the nonsense of what you call 'facts'.

Could you do me a favour and ask your physicist partner to post your solar pv readings since you had them installed and let's see if the figures really back up your (impossible) claims.