Free solar panel discussion

hethmar

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Not sure what the reference to new posters (including me) is supposed to imply - are they (we, me) a different breed or something?


It always concerns me that when a lot of new poster come on the site they have some sort of vested interest in the subject. I apologise if thats not the case but Im trying to get an unbiased view of this subject and I seem to have got caught up in the large number of postings about the amount of electricity a kettle uses and so on and am very confused now.:)

I dont know why I feel concerned. May be its the old, if it seems to be too good to be true ............... The words De Lorean keep coming to mind for some reason. And 25 years is a very long time...........

It will be interesting if there are some new government incentives where a consumer has a lot more guarantees in place.

Perry525

Here are some figures for Kingston on Thames.
This is with the correct inclination for London.
It is for a 4 kwh set up, with losses in the region of 23.3%
Being in the London basin, as you would expect there is terrible pollution, you only have to stand on top of Shooters Hill looking west on a sunny day to see the pink for below and items like St.Pauls and the Post office tower sticking out of the murk.

Inclin.=36 deg., Orient.=-1 deg.
Month Production per month (kWh) Production per day (kWh)
Jan 127 4.1
Feb 184 6.6
Mar 274 8.8
Apr 389 13.0
May 449 14.5
Jun 428 14.3
Jul 455 14.7
Aug 422 13.6
Sep 320 10.7
Oct 238 7.7
Nov 146 4.9
Dec 91 2.9

Yearly average 293 9.6
Total yearly production (kWh) 3521

Do installers calculate the losses in the system, and install a system that will deliver 4 kw to the electricity meter, or do they just put up panels on the roof regardless of orientation and losses?
Does anyone know or care?

While nuclear and gas may be off, there is the issue of our Government spending millions of our money, seemingly without any idea of the alternatives.
Mind, how can we expect these people to understand?
They are strongly advised by their civil servents, who must blind them with science

grahamc2003

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

You are wrong to suggest that taxpayers money is used - it is not. You really should stop posting misleading information.

While most people who will be paying for the FIT (via a loading on their electrcity bill) are taxpayers, I suppose you are technically correct (although its a moot popint) that there are many on benefits and already in fuel poverty and who's income is below the tax threshold who will also have to pay the levy.

I think it's clear that the benefits of the levy either go to commercial companies set up for the purpose, or the upper middle class and above who have a spare £14k to invest, in general.

I think whatever else, it's best to accept that this subsidy is a transfer of wealth from the poorer to the richer.

John_Pierpoint

How many Civil Servants studied Science Engineering & Maths at university compared to those who did non rigorous subjects like History & English etc.?

I think whatever else, it's best to accept that this subsidy is a transfer of wealth from the poorer to the richer.

Economists call that effect "cumulative causation" the "poorer" people use a more understandable phrase:
"Money goes to money".

digitaltoast

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

Your maths are not very clear - you start off with a 6kWp system and then use a 3kWp system? If its a 6kWp system you have used the wrong FIT rate. Maybe if you explain what you are trying to show I can help with the math.

How does the FiT rate of a 6kWp system affect this? I took the 6kWp system, divided it into a unit, and multiplied that unit by the given value of the system, THEN used the FiT. What's not clear?

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

You are wrong to suggest that taxpayers money is used - it is not. You really should stop posting misleading information.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/free-solar-panels

There’s a lucrative government scheme that pays c.£800 cashback on all the energy solar panels generate. Normally the homeowner grabs this but, in return for the free solar panels, Isis takes this cashback.
The Feed in Tariff has broad cross-party support and is a guarantee from government that the payments will be made for 25 years following the installation of a micro-generation system.

Er.. name me anyone in the UK who uses electricity or owns a home who doesn't pay any tax. The upcoming 20% VAT. The tax on home fuel. The 95% tax on electricity. Do you know anyone who never buys anything, never drinks, never drives, never goes anywhere...

We are all taxpayers, it is our money that is used.

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

You really should stop posting misleading information.

Couldn't have put it better myself...

Edit: Oops, someone beat me to it while I was typing!

quoia wrote: »

Despite the error, it's quite clear to me.

The data is from a 6.47kW system over a 2 year period

The maths get an average kWh generated per day for a 1kW system

this is then fed into the ISIS model

Exactly! Thanks. Now, where was I wrong?

Mcfi5dhc

digitaltoast wrote: »

How does the FiT rate of a 6kWp system affect this? I took the 6kWp system, divided it into a unit, and multiplied that unit by the given value of the system, THEN used the FiT. What's not clear?

You don't get 41.3p per unit for installations over 4kwp - it reduces to 36p per unit


Also, the government makes the energy companies pay out the FIT - it does not come from government money. The government have committed the energy companies for the next 25 years to pay this out - that is the end of their involvement

digitaltoast wrote: »

Exactly! Thanks. Now, where was I wrong?

quoia

digitaltoast wrote: »

Exactly! Thanks. Now, where was I wrong?

See my previous post - I've highlighted in an edited section that I quoted from you

365 * 2 ?

digitaltoast

Mcfi5dhc wrote: »

You don't get 41.3p per unit for installations over 4kwp - it reduces to 36p per unit.

Yes, which is why I used the output from the trials system without the pence per unit, and used a 3kW system as the 41.3p example.

Mcfi5dhc wrote: »

Also, the government makes the energy companies pay out the FIT - it does not come from government money. The government have committed the energy companies for the next 25 years to pay this out - that is the end of their involvement

I still stand by my assertion that the money comes from taxpayers.

quoia

Mcfi5dhc wrote: »

You don't get 41.3p per unit for installations over 4kwp - it reduces to 36p per unit

You've STILL not actually read what digitaltoast has explained and I've posted in post # 311

digitaltoast

quoia wrote: »

See my previous post - I've highlighted in an edited section that I quoted from you

365 * 2 ?

You've lost me.
The trial I quoted and linked to ran for 2 years. 2 years is 730 days...

Oh, I see what I did there! OK, I apologise, I'd just plugged the figures into a chain of sums in Excel. Never be on the phone and do forum stuff at the same time!

OK, let's do that again:

2 years = 365*2 = 730
installed size: 6.47kW
10202kWh / 730 = 13.9kWh per day
13.9/6.47 = 2.15
2.15*3 (kW system from Isis) = 6.45
6.45 * 41.3p paid per kWh = 6.57*.043 = £2.66 per day.

So, thanks for pointing that out. The return is even smaller...