Your Solar PV Readings - Discussions

square-eyes

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

What was the Total Generation meter reading which you put on the FiT application form .... unless they have asked for an update in order to process the form they will have no other figure to work from and would probably not bother getting involved in estimating a couple of days of difference ..... just check the payment when it's made to see what they've done ...

HTH
Z

Thank you all for your replies. Just so I cover all the questions in the last few replies.
1) The delay was in receiving the MCS certificate. Whether this was the certification authority or my installer I don't know.
2) I filled in the Scottish Power forms accurately including the meter reading at the time I filled in the form. I had been told I would get payment from the installation date. It was only after Scottish Power confirmed receiving their forms back that the letter said they would pay from the date they got the forms for the next 25 years.
I know I will get the money back at the end of 25 years but I wonder whether I will be still here to collect or whether the government will cancel the scheme before that. It is just the thought of 460 units falling outside the initial payback that grates with me. The extra couple of hundred would have come in handy.

zeupater

square-eyes wrote: »

Thank you all for your replies. Just so I cover all the questions in the last few replies.
1) The delay was in receiving the MCS certificate. Whether this was the certification authority or my installer I don't know.
2) I filled in the Scottish Power forms accurately including the meter reading at the time I filled in the form. I had been told I would get payment from the installation date. It was only after Scottish Power confirmed receiving their forms back that the letter said they would pay from the date they got the forms for the next 25 years.
I know I will get the money back at the end of 25 years but I wonder whether I will be still here to collect or whether the government will cancel the scheme before that. It is just the thought of 460 units falling outside the initial payback that grates with me. The extra couple of hundred would have come in handy.

Hi

There was a slight delay in processing our application with Scottish Power too .... but the start date for the 25 years was simply the date of registration of the pack at Scottish Power and the initial Total Generation meter reading was taken as being what was on the application form.

HTH
Z

keith_r59

square-eyes wrote: »

1) The delay was in receiving the MCS certificate. Whether this was the certification authority or my installer I don't know.

The MCS certificate is automatically generated from an on-line system so I am at a loss to understand why your installer took 6 weeks to input your installation information and then send it out to you. I got mine e-mailed to me the day after the installation.

square-eyes

keith_r59 wrote: »

The MCS certificate is automatically generated from an on-line system so I am at a loss to understand why your installer took 6 weeks to input your installation information and then send it out to you. I got mine e-mailed to me the day after the installation.

I didn't know the certificate was auto generated. The only date on the certificate is the commissioning date 20/5/11 and the meter reading is 000003. The date on the certificate is 2 days after the day the installer switched the system on.
I don't know why the power companies ignore these dates and figures but rely on the date and reading when you send the application form.
I suppose that if installers think you will be paid from the certified date, they don't think there is any need to rush the paperwork to you.
I know one house down the road who has had solar panels installed before me and still hasn't had the paperwork. I advised them to get a move on as it is costing them money. BTW: They are too old to wait 25 years to benefit from the money at the end of the term.

zeupater

square-eyes wrote: »

I didn't know the certificate was auto generated. The only date on the certificate is the commissioning date 20/5/11 and the meter reading is 000003. The date on the certificate is 2 days after the day the installer switched the system on.
I don't know why the power companies ignore these dates and figures but rely on the date and reading when you send the application form.
I suppose that if installers think you will be paid from the certified date, they don't think there is any need to rush the paperwork to you.
I know one house down the road who has had solar panels installed before me and still hasn't had the paperwork. I advised them to get a move on as it is costing them money. BTW: They are too old to wait 25 years to benefit from the money at the end of the term.

Hi

This seems to be a problem with your installer more than anything. My installer registered the system on the MCS database from a laptop whilst sitting in his van on my drive. They had FiT application forms avalable for my FiT partner and therefore everything was available to complete, sign & despatch immediately, which they handled with/for us ....

If both yourself and the other installation you mention have used the same installer, then it looks like a case of a company who seem to concentrate on the workload and not the administration, which is quite typical for small concerns, so they should pull their socks up before experiences like yours start to have a negative effect on their reputation ....

HTH
Z

square-eyes

I am interested in whether this summer has been as sunny as predicted. I have charted the monthly output of my system compared to the predicted output supplied by the installer from the simulation figures they provided. I had thought the being in the South the figures would exceed the simulation figures especially as it is a new installation. However they appear to be falling a bit short. Do other installations have similar under performance?
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/1KKugCzhad3Or8kTQxC82cubUxlxeTtiIcqS2a4Hq6I?feat=directlink

zeupater

square-eyes wrote: »

I am interested in whether this summer has been as sunny as predicted. I have charted the monthly output of my system compared to the predicted output supplied by the installer from the simulation figures they provided. I had thought the being in the South the figures would exceed the simulation figures especially as it is a new installation. However they appear to be falling a bit short. Do other installations have similar under performance?
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/1KKugCzhad3Or8kTQxC82cubUxlxeTtiIcqS2a4Hq6I?feat=directlink

Hi

What you need to look at is this .... http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomacts/ .... select the sunshine data and you'll get the idea.

You could use the information to help flex your actual performance to see what it could have been in an 'average' year .... that's only if you're as obsessed as me ....

HTH
Z

square-eyes

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

What you need to look at is this .... http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomacts/ .... select the sunshine data and you'll get the idea.

You could use the information to help flex your actual performance to see what it could have been in an 'average' year .... that's only if you're as obsessed at me ....

HTH
Z

That's brilliant. It explains the under performance except for May. I had to estimate this as I only had two weeks data. Pity I missed the exceptional April this year.:T

zeupater

square-eyes wrote: »

That's brilliant. It explains the under performance except for May. I had to estimate this as I only had two weeks data. Pity I missed the exceptional April this year.:T

Hi

Just checked my data .... first few days of May here were exceptional, the rest varied from average to abysmal ... if you had a system installed mid-May then the performance would likely be worse than the Met-Office stats would show for the entire month.

HTH
Z

free_juice?

I'm surprised by the results posted here recently. My 3.29kW system was installed on 7th January this year with a projected annual output of 2,830 kWh which was considered reasonable by the experts here at the time.

It will require some particularly poor weather if that total isn't passed tomorrow or the next day.