Free solar panel discussion

zeupater

cathd6 wrote: »

Hi zeupater. The system was installed end Nov, began operation 1 Dec exactly. Latest reading was from June 1. Electricity bill was for the last quarter received which almost ties in with 1st 3 months of operation - due next bill any day so will be interesting. Bill differential now claimed and banked - over £100.
I'm aware that generation will be lower in winter months point was that 500 over first quarter would be implausible as this would indicate 1700 for 2nd. If you look at your figures above the total Mar - may is1400.
If anyone would like the full details on how much we've saved and sold back then again, Pm me and I'm really happy to give them to help with your decision. Suffice to say,we're very happy.

Hi

Okay, we are starting to get somewhere. If the 2253kWh was a 01/06/11 reading on a system commissioned on 01/12/10, the nominal PVGIS generation estimate would suggest 1945kWh (139+157+214+395+497+543) for the theoretical system in Wembury ...

Let's now quickly look at flexing the nominal PVGIS estimate using the met-office sunshine anomaly (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomacts/). Without going into specific data let's assume for this exercise that an anomaly of +10% on the sunshine hours delivers +5% radiation to the panels, and that the anomaly is the median of the met-office anomaly band, it's probably not far out.

For Wembury the results of flexing would result in :
Dec : 139+20% = 167
Jan : 157+0% = 157
Feb : 214-20% = 171
Mar : 395+20% = 474
Apr : 497+20% = 596
May : 543+0% = 543

The total target flexed generation would now be 2108kWh (167+157+171+474+596+543). Your system outperformed these figures by 6.9%(2253/2108), which is an acceptable anomaly considering that it reflects typical manufacturing performance tolerances and the calculation we are using is a 'rule-of-thumb' method which I use (because it's good enough for me).

Right then, let's use this to address the point "that 500 over first quarter would be implausible as this would indicate 1700 for 2nd. If you look at your figures above the total Mar - may is1400." ...... from the figures above the first quarter would target 495kWh(167+157+171) and the second quarter 1613kWh(474+596+543), so when your particular panel performance uplift of 6.9% is added we get a split of 529kWh & 1724kWh, balancing back to your original 2253kWh production. Note that this fully supports the 1700kWh for the second quarter which you raised as a query ......

It really does make sense, so I hope this helps ........

Z

cathd6

Hi. That' great. Being a linguist I'm interested in the definition of 'flexing'.
It's good to see someone back up our generation figures and I appreciate your effort. I'm very surprised at the level of disparity though, which is going to send me to our spreads after all to see how good an estimate can be derived. Still got the Dec /Feb issue here.
And still left with the unasked question on the electricity saving

cathd6

HalloweenJack wrote: »

australia is another country reducing payments - the numbers dont add up to all the hype.

No, Australia has just confirmed there won't be a reduction, as Germany did before it (don't know if George has noticed yet )

FIT payments are meant to reduce though. The total pot is capped and the rate new entrants get is on a sliding scale based on take -up to date.

bikeman

I'm gonna wait for a domestic solar powered hydrogen electric generator - 25 years is a long time to be stuck with a solar technology that generates its peak elec when you dont need it and has no form of storage.

HalloweenJack

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/2000-jobs-tipped-to-go-from-nsw-solar-cuts-20101104-17f06.html

^^ someone needs to tell NSW then that the reduced rate effective from last year has actually been reversed according to you then.....

and the same story - again not mentioning about a reversal - from 2 weeks ago

http://www.newenergyworldnetwork.com/renewable-energy-news/by-technology/solar/new-south-wales-to-cap-fit-halves-incentive-rates.html

zeupater

cathd6 wrote: »

Hi. That' great. Being a linguist I'm interested in the definition of 'flexing'.
It's good to see someone back up our generation figures and I appreciate your effort. I'm very surprised at the level of disparity though, which is going to send me to our spreads after all to see how good an estimate can be derived. Still got the Dec /Feb issue here.
And still left with the unasked question on the electricity saving

Hi

As a linguist you will obviously recognise that to 'flex' can be used to describe the alteration of form. In this case it would effectively be altering the form of a set of nominal figures based on averaged conditions to reflect actual conditions, thus bending something which exists in one form to suit another purpose by introducing some form of influence ... similar to 'flexing' a flat card to form an arch by introducing a force at either end ...... I hope that it's use is therefore acceptable

Back to the issue at hand, what needs to be remembered is that this as a rule-of-thumb method, I haven't looked into the exact met-office sunshine record for Wembury, just an indication that it would be within a certain banding and therefore took the median of the band. We all know that last December was one of the coldest on record, and as a pv owner you will probably know that your panel performance degrades with temperature at a rate which would be around 0.5% per degreeC of panel temperature above 25C (Summer Operating temperatures are probably around 45C, so about a 10% loss) and very importantly, the inverse is true as the tempurature falls below 25C. Where we are the December nighttime temperature fell below -19C, and we had midday temperatures well below -5C for days on end. However, many/most of these days were accompanied by freezing fog and we had a considerable amount of snowfall, much more than the 'sunny' Devon coast. If you want to continue the discussion we could look at the relative temperature anomalies for December and apply the appropriate efficiency gains in order to prove a point, but that would really be ridiculous, so, let's just say that for Devon in particular, last December was exceptional and February was abysmal .....

Regarding the unasked question on the energy saving, I'm not going to be the one to ask it .... however, if you choose to purchase your units of energy at an inflated rate, then that's your decision .... most can still purchase their tier 2 priced electricity at around 10p/kWh, so that's what should realistically be used in all pv saving comparisons .....

HTH
Z

M4ximillion

Cardew wrote: »

It is the old syndrome of people simply deluding themselves when they have undertaken a course of action and need to justify their decision. People buy a £10 magnet which they strap to the fuel lines of a car and swear blind it reduces fuel consumption by xx%!!

Absolutely no rational explanation of how ‘rent a roof’ panels will save £216.

In all the documented cases I have read – where an export meter is used(the way to measure ‘in house’ consumption) I have not seen an example of more than 1,000kWh pa used. That is in line with most estimates – even ASG do not dispute that figure and WHICH are in the same ballpark.

Incidentally rather than paying 12p per kWh for Tier 2 electricity, it would pay to switch to a cheaper tariff.

If anyone wants to believe they are making such savings - so be it. However people come to this forum for considered advice and we should not be detered from giving this for fear of offending posters.

I know this is an old post now but it is your attempt to ridicule me again and ive not been on the site since i last commented so that's why i'm dragging it up because the way you select to dismiss the rest of what i said earlier is proof in my view of your hiddenn agenda that will one day come out. I have said quite a few times now, Cardew, but you have ignored me so i will say it loudly

I HAVE MONITORED MY USAGE FROM THE GRID SINCE I HAD THE SYSTEM INSTALLED IN FEBRUARY AND I AM USING 40% LESS THAN THE SAME PERIOD LAST YEAR. MY TOTAL USAGE FOR 12 MONTHS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION WAS 4500 (ROUNDED UP, I GOT CONSUMPTION CHART). IF I CONTINUE AS I AM DOING, MY USAGE WITH THE PANELS IN PLACE SHOULD BE 2700KW HOURS. SO, I WILL HAVE SAVED 1800KW HOURS X 12P PER KILOWATT HOUR THAT I AM PAYING AT THE MOMENT = £216. I DIDN'T JUST DREAM THE FIGURE UP.

You keep going on about how you can't possibly use more than 1000kw hours a year and that you have seen proof of this but you offer no proof of it. Also, were the panels the same as the ones ive got? Were all the roofs the same as mine? (and others that asg have fitted on). From the feedback i see on ASG's facebook page and also from their testimonials my experience seems to be the norm. I think solar is much more effective than you say but youre determined not to let the truth out because you can't stand being wrong or anyone disagreeing with you. GrahamC is the same. You just keep harping back to the same figures. Do you ever think that maybe you could be a tad wrong????

HalloweenJack

i shouldnt laugh

http://www.dtiris.nsw.gov.au/energy/sustainable/renewable/solar/solar-scheme

the new south wales governemnt (own website you`ll notice) - says ` no change` to the tarrif - i can see where your mistaken , theres no change (or reversal as you said) to the 60cent rate - or the lower 20 cent rate from last year....

zeupater

HalloweenJack wrote: »

i shouldnt laugh

http://www.dtiris.nsw.gov.au/energy/sustainable/renewable/solar/solar-scheme

the new south wales governemnt (own website you`ll notice) - says ` no change` to the tarrif - i can see where your mistaken , theres no change (or reversal as you said) to the 60cent rate - or the lower 20 cent rate from last year....

Hi

Note that this is simply confirmation of "no change to payments for customers already receiving or about to receive tariff" ...... the important element of that sentence is "to payments for customers already receiving or about to receive tariff", which I would read as meaning that reductions which have been announced for new installs wouldn't apply to existing, or contracted installations. This is exactly what other countries have done. The similar unscheduled change in the German FiT scheme last year created an installation frenzy in order to register systems under more attractive tariffs before the cut-off date.

HTH
Z

HalloweenJack

the reply was specifically to

cathd6 wrote: »

No, Australia has just confirmed there won't be a reduction, as Germany did before it (don't know if George has noticed yet )

the reduction - and as said previously in this thread ` reversal` of reduced FiT payments IS going ahead , either on schedule or ahead ; which is exactly what i said , and linked to.

so thank you for reinforcing exactly what i had allready said.

edit:

whats also of amazing interest is , each google of ` xxx country reducing feed in tarriff` , eg france , germany , spain etc - all show they have allready reduced tarfiffs - without reversal - in fact the ones complaining are the bigger farms - losing the most money