Solar Panel Guide Discussion

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Martyn.

If I collect all the comments you have made, and post them here, you will argue that I am quoting them out of context; and we get into a pointless semantic discussion.

No. I’m perfectly happy for you to quote me, I’m just tired of you quoting your version of me (and others).

Cardew wrote: »

The thrust of your many posts has been to justify the high rate FIT for individual sub-4kWp systems and argue against solar farms.

No again. I’m not arguing against solar farms, I’m just taking the time and trouble to explain to you what you are missing, when you simply assume that PV farms are more economical. I do not believe that this is that complex. Unlike wind where small systems are proportionately very expense compared to the large turbines, PV is simply modular, with domestic, commercial and grid supply farms sharing the same basic technology and generation levels, give or take near perfect orientation of PV farm panels. I would love nothing more than to see subsidy free viable PV Farms.

Cardew wrote: »

You totally ignore the fact that systems on houses only export a percentage of their generation(and understandably spend a lot of effort to make that percentage as low as possible). Solar farms will export virtually all of their generation.

I’ve never ignored that. I’ve answered you probably a dozen times, so again you are making stuff up. Each time I have explained that export is not important. Micro-generation is aimed at reducing demand, not supplying the grid. The easiest way to achieve subsidy free viability is to maximise consumption – do you not want the subsidies to be successfully reduced. I can’t find any polite way to say this, so if you don’t get this bit about domestic PV then you either don’t understand the basic principles of FITs and domestic viability, or are simply trying to cause distraction.

One last shot - the more money a household can save, the more viable domestic PV will be. Commercial sites such as supermarkets would for instance have near 100% consumption of generated PV of an appropriate size (perhaps 20-50kWp).

Cardew wrote: »

The people behind the proposed grid viable solar farm in Spain have also presumably managed to 'do the numbers'.

Yes. PV is now teetering on the point of grid supply viability in Spain, but other than through distraction and noise, how do you think this supports or validates your argument of UK grid supply viability. In your assumptions have you taken solar levels and land costs into account?

It’s a really simple question, taking all costs and incomes into account, which do you think is the easiest ‘subsidy free’ viability point. Commercial, Domestic or Grid supply? Do the numbers, or search back and find one of the many times I’ve attempted it for you, and see what you agree and disagree with. At least then we’d have a starting point to discuss, rather than these inane misquotes.

One last point of interest, I share your dislike of the RaR’s sucking up so much of the subsidy, but how do you justify your anti commercial stance on RaR’s with your pro commercial stance on PV farms? Can’t we just accept that it’s all one big mixed up pot and just get on with it.

Mart.

Martyn1981

jimjames wrote: »

Just to throw another spanner in the works - and no I don't know the answer. The often quoted line is that PV is no use because it doesn't work at night when the peak loading occurs.

I think he meant winter nights, or perhaps GMT nights.

However, as I've said previously, it's irrelevant unless you were operating under the misunderstanding that PV worked at night, or was being deployed to address night time demands.

You could similarly criticise Dinorwig as a peak time specialist for failing to provide constant supply. Horses for courses.

'PV can't generate during all high demand, but there is high demand during all PV generation.'

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Data/Realtime/Demand/demand24.htm

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

One last point of interest, I share your dislike of the RaR’s sucking up so much of the subsidy, but how do you justify your anti commercial stance on RaR’s with your pro commercial stance on PV farms? Can’t we just accept that it’s all one big mixed up pot and just get on with it.

Mart.

Just one last point and then I will give up - again.

Your preaching about mis-representing posts is really quite amusing.

I am not pro-commercial PV farms in any way. I have consistently argued that if we have to have solar PV subsidised, then it makes sense to have that subsidy used in the most efficient manner.

It seems self-evident to me that if commercial organisations were prepared to have solar farms installed, and receive only half the subsidy given to sub-4kWp systems,(and export all the generated electricity instead of using a high proportion in-house) it is a far more efficient use of that subsidy.

Don't bother to reply, I really find your lack of logic depressing.

don0301

orrery wrote: »

I'm sure that they have, but I've done my numbers too. Spread-sheeting the original pre-December 2011 tariff against a cash ISA (both tax free income), with an allowance for maintenance costs to the PV system, shows that it will take about 17 years for me to better the ISA. Those with the more recent lower tariffs are unlikely to ever break even on that calculation, even with lower cost systems. There's no way I'd go ahead with a system now.

It would be helpful for you to state your numbers, rather than just making that statement.

I bought my system end of Nov last year for £12495

as of today my spreadsheet is showing a first year total of £2136.14, thats an ROI of 17.1% tax free

£1895.22 FiT payments
£240.92 Electricity savings (compared to last year)
+ an unmeasured saving of gas, by heating water with the immersion when appropriate

Ive taken the average inflation over the last ten years, 3.3%, to estimate future payments, think thats a fair assumption. My Spreadsheet uses the same figure for fuel price rises, which is probably an underestimate

So my spreadsheet today is estimating the capital repaid in 5 yrs and 132 days

that leaves over 19 and a half years to pay for maintenance costs and a little profit, which I'm sure cannot be matched by any saving device.

Whether a system now is worth it or not, I have no idea.

I'm very happy with mine

Cardew

orrery wrote: »

I'm sure that they have, but I've done my numbers too. Spread-sheeting the original pre-December 2011 tariff against a cash ISA (both tax free income), with an allowance for maintenance costs to the PV system, shows that it will take about 17 years for me to better the ISA. Those with the more recent lower tariffs are unlikely to ever break even on that calculation, even with lower cost systems. There's no way I'd go ahead with a system now.

I would be interested to see your costs and assumptions to come up with a 17 year break-even figure. i.e

cost of system,

income from FIT

Interest rate for ISA

Inflation rate

Inflation rate for electricty prices

value of in-house electricity

Maintenance costs

IIRC the consensus in 2010 was between 10 and 12 years.

Commercial(solar farms) organisations were prepared to set up systems for an FIT of 20p/kWh. Presumably they had taken into account all factors in their business plan(aka 'do the numbers;))

zeupater

ronlizpatsimon wrote: »

Good afternoon "jimjames"
Earlier you queried consumption by day compared with night.
This must be a highly personal thing; dependent on several factors such as what equipment you have, and when you have to use it.
Personally, being retired, I can use heavy usage items during daylight (water heating, dishwasher, clothes-washer and ironing). The normal main use after dark is the more modest consumption of the TV and a few low energy bulbs. I can use Gas for central heating if needed. The cost of buying electricity is £32 per month (3 bed-roomed detached dormer bungalow)

Hi ronlizpatsimon / All

We're quite similar then ... apart from your high cost of imported energy .... our DD is around 20% lower than yours for dual fuel (&falling) plus around £130/year in logs ....

The above figure reflects a daily import of electricity which averages around 4kWh, the vast majority of which is consumed overnight, so the provision of a reliable, long-duty battery system capable of servicing somewhere around 500VA for 12Hrs would almost cancel this out, especially useful if the control system could also smooth the generation/demand peaks & troughs during the day too ....

Our electricity is tier priced and due to our low usage almost all of what we import is tier1, therefore the payback for any storage system for us would be much faster than for someone using far more energy ....

Anyone got a spare Prius battery pack, an old inverter, circuit design experience and some time on their hands ?? :D

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Don't bother to reply, I really find your lack of logic depressing.

Trying to shut a discussion down because I won't agree with you?

Why don't you just run some numbers and let's see which is more viable? As I said earlier, pull up one of my attempts at identifying all the costs, and see what you think? Probably quicker than just scattering the threads with wild claims.

The link in Don's post contains an explanation on the various viabilities, and the problems in reaching them.

Lastly, 'you can't have your cake and eat it', you don't like subsidies but you'd rather put the money into the PV system that in the UK will probably take longest to reach viability, rather than explore all options?

Try this article that looks at 4kWp PV prices in Germany with FITs, and in the USA without. $8,000 v's $20,000.

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/pv-prices-down-66-since-2006/150/510/56052/

FITs is working, and the UK is doing its bit (small bit).

Mart.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi ronlizpatsimon / All

Anyone got a spare Prius battery pack, an old inverter, circuit design experience and some time on their hands ?? :D

HTH
Z

Here's one I made earlier!

http://www.earthtechling.com/2012/02/japan-combines-solar-storage-to-beat-blackouts/2/

Quick question, if your leccy is mostly tier 1, have you thought about a company that offers a single tariff, no tiers or standing charges? I think you can find them for around 15p(ish). Any use?

Mart.

jimjames

ronlizpatsimon wrote: »

Good afternoon "jimjames"
Earlier you queried consumption by day compared with night.
This must be a highly personal thing; dependent on several factors such as what equipment you have, and when you have to use it.
Personally, being retired, I can use heavy usage items during daylight (water heating, dishwasher, clothes-washer and ironing). The normal main use after dark is the more modest consumption of the TV and a few low energy bulbs. I can use Gas for central heating if needed. The cost of buying electricity is £32 per month (3 bed-roomed detached dormer bungalow)

Thanks for that. I guess I was really referring to PV electricity exported rather than used on site and the benefits or otherwise of increased generation during sunny days when that electricity may be needed to cover spikes as a result of that sunny weather.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

1. At the end of 2011 the UK had less than 1% of the world’s solar panels. Yet you appear to justify the initial high rate of FIT in 2010 on the grounds that the UK’s adoption of solar was a big factor in world wide lowering of PV panel prices.

I disagree. I contend that prices would have fallen regardless of the UK’s contribution.

Hi Cardew

Looking purely at the installed capacity at a point in time in illogical ... to establish any form of link between panel pricing and the UK's contribution you would need to look at the installations within a period of time ....

Let's look at your selection of 2011 - this is a pretty good selection as it would reflect the first full year of FiTs in the UK and therefore removes the period of slow early takeup and problems with inverter supply in 2010 ... so what do we see ? ... total global capacity increased by 21GW (http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/18384/solar-pv-installations-over-21-gw-in-2011-but-lower-2012/) in 2011 and UK installations within the FiT scheme accounted for around 550MW (http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/energy_stats/source/fits/fits.aspx) therefore around 2.6% would be a fairer figure to use ....

Extrapolating that simply adding a low percentage to demand results in a low impact on the supply side of the equation is a little flawed ... you would need to consider what the global 21GW installed in 2011 was as an increase over 2010, and similarly the 550MW 2011 increase vs that in 2010 ... only then would it be possible to see what effect a step-change in demand has had on the supply-side which has driven prices down ....

It's my belief that many of the pv panel manufacturers actually saw opportunities based on 2009/2010 market prices and commissioned new capacity, became shocked by the actual increase in demand created by the various FiT schemes and continued to increase capacity without regard to their competition ... resulting in general global overcapacity and the rapid reduction in prices .... without the effect of the FiTs demand growth would have been lower and the manufacturers would have had more time to control supply & therefore prices .... when you have overcapacity and customers are calling for goods at lower prices you simply don't turn the business away .... 550MW of panels isn't an insignificant figure so although it represents 2.6% of the demand it likely contributed more than 2.6% towards price/cost reductions ....

HTH
Z