Solar Panel Guide Discussion

spgsc531

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

On the contrary, despite the suppositions raised above, I fully stand behind what I originally posted and therefore fully agree with the op's post in question as being correct in detail, fact & sentiment ....

Regarding and addressing what you would classify as being 'hypothetical' ..... On these boards it's pretty well accepted that typical electricity savings resulting from a pv installation would be expected to be in the region of £100, this being mainly linked to baseload consumption of generation, with high load applications typically being intermittent. A 4kWp system was selected specifically because it is higher than average for a domestic installation, but still typical, and, very importantly, doesn't fall into the trap of manipulating the figures to suit - of course, selecting a 2kWp system would suit the position even better, as would using a saving of ~£130 or calculating at an anticipated annual generation below 900kWh/kWp ....

The 'proof' which was previously requested from both the op & myself has been provided as multiple logical alternatives, even though the request to do so would be considered by many as being extremely puerile, therefore acceptance, or not, is in the eye of the beholder ... all that's needed is for the beholder to take an objective view, which most do, as opposed to taking the confrontational 'ad-hominem' approach ....

HTH
Z

Just to remind you cardew said:

Cardew wrote: »

In that respect the 'older' PV installations with their 50p+/kWh subsidy would be more attractive.

The subsidy in question is paid in 2 parts:
Generation tariff
Export tariff

Nothing else.

which for the 'older' installations quoted is a total of 48.46p

Therefore cardew was wrong, and you are wrong agreeing that he is right. No amount of obfuscation can overcome those simple facts.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Point 1 - I think that it's pretty much apparent what the sentiment was and with the total tariff being 48.46p/kWh before the 'subsidised' system saves ~£100, then a 4kWp system generating ~3600kWh/year would create an additional saving of ~2.78p/kWh of generation(100/3600), therefore the saving, due to a system which would likely not have been purchased without the 'subsidy' would be ~51.24p/kWh generated (48.46+2.78)

HTH
Z

Whilst I appreciate that this is just squabbling over 5p or so, can you really class export and leccy savings as a subsidy. Shouldn't the FIT be the correct 'subsidy'? Or if I'm being really pedantic, the old FIT reduced to take account of the low export rate of 3.3p, which is now a much fairer 4.64p (but the difference wrapped into the older and higher FIT). Being even more pedantic, shouldn't the export rate be bumped up about 10% (to 5p) to account for the lack of losses, that long distance transmission suffers.

Just a silly, fun mental exercise, but if I remember correctly the 16p FIT rate in Aug 2012 was reduced from a planned 16.85p when the export rate was bumped up from 3.2p to 4.5p, so they 'sort of' go hand in hand.

I understand your point that the investment wouldn't have taken place, but using your approach of looking for the extreme, let's consider as and when FIT is zero (or subsidy/missing leccy costs neutral). You wouldn't then class the export and leccy savings as a subsidy, so should you now?

Back to house prices, I can't help thinking that there are two issues here, finding a price that both parties are agreeable on for the house and PV system, then finding a value for the long-term investment (FIT) that goes with the house. Once fully explained and understood, it's simply back to two parties both agreeing on the same total value on the same day. Simples and very complicated all at the same time!

Mart.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi John

Interesting .... but have a look at this view of the same data, it'll stimulate your neurons for a while .... http://tools.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/local_auth/interactive/domestic_solar/index.html

HTH
Z

Hiya, I saw this recently, and thought it very interesting, but the final grouping of 912-8682 is too broad and seems to spoil it a bit, as it's hard to compare and contrast LA's. Though to be fair the build up does seem to be fairly even, possibly a little slow in the S. East????

Presumably somewhere DECC has the individual totals for each LA.

Mart.

spgsc531

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya, I saw this recently, and thought it very interesting, but the final grouping of 912-8682 is too broad and seems to spoil it a bit, as it's hard to compare and contrast LA's. Though to be fair the build up does seem to be fairly even, possibly a little slow in the S. East????

Presumably somewhere DECC has the individual totals for each LA.

Mart.

As I think I've pointed out before, you can find out LA installs with:

http://www.ref.org.uk/fits/search.php

by playing with the options you can get some very interesting results. It says somewhere on the website data as per Dec 2012 I think last time I looked.

John_Pierpoint

zeupater wrote: »

Hi John

Interesting .... but have a look at this view of the same data, it'll stimulate your neurons for a while .... http://tools.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/local_auth/interactive/domestic_solar/index.html

HTH
Z

Leaving aside the amount of tax payer money invested in Morden Hall to create hydroelectric power [I dread to think. Though on the national trust blog I found some examples of hydro electric generation of over 100 years ago. It is a shame the gear boxes tend to wear out].

That interactive map link is rather fun, as it rolls through the months of the "gold rush" and the map goes purple as roofs all over the country sprout subsidised PV panels. Unfortunately the installations are broken down by local authority area, so in itself is meaningless. [In the same way as not all MP's are equal, because some have more constituents than others].

I think a more meaningful measurement would be number of households per PV installation [or perhaps per kWp of capacity or estimated kWh of annual generation]
So looking at the purple map for the end of the "gold rush" I tried to make sense of the figures.
It is chaos, some local authorities still quote the 2001 census, some 2011, some neither. I looked up the "bin collection" statistics. Feeling like a reporter for the TV programme tracking the missing migrants, I found yet a third figure of the households receiving refuse disposal services.
So the following is highly suspect:
households per installation
213 known to some residents as "the pits" - that is my borough's bin figure.
098 Cambridge
096 Oxford
096 Cherwell
??? Buckingham (part of Aylesbury Vale, I think, and I could not get the numbers)
089 Milton Keynes
089 Brighton
117 Bristol
078 Highlands of Scotland !!!!!

Is this the one place where we don't need any more expensive PV generation, given the hydro, wind & potentially nuclear that needs exporting to the south? Is this canny Scots or have I got the decimal place in the wrong position?

Edit Here are more suspect figures:
056 Wiltshire
034 Cornwall - perhaps I have demonstrated that it is canny rural folk, used to farming the subsidies, who switched on to PV - or is it the number of retired folk?

........and the winner is ....
021 Wrexham? [Do i remember that the council had its own scheme to cram every roof available?]

.........hang on it might be

021 > the Isle of White figure, but I cannot find the latest household numbers on the useless local authority web site.

zeupater

spgsc531 wrote: »

Just to remind you cardew said:



The subsidy in question is paid in 2 parts:
Generation tariff
Export tariff

Nothing else.

which for the 'older' installations quoted is a total of 48.46p

Therefore cardew was wrong, and you are wrong agreeing that he is right. No amount of obfuscation can overcome those simple facts.

Hi

It is plain for all to see & understand what has been written and that a point of debate is upheld on a point of pedantic diversion. There have been two previous explanations of how/why the figure of '50p' used can easily be justified either by relating to time or applying the full financial benefit ..... however, even if these are considered by a closed pedantic mind as being illogical or unacceptable, the difference is of little consequence when related to the op's post ....

To anyone following this discussion, the level of irrelevance introduced by purely pedantic approach must seem quite outstanding when related to both the content and context of the original post. May I therefore be allowed to provide congratulations for the decision to employ such a cerebrally taxing strategy for so little benefit to all (but one ?) members, whether they be in favour of pv or not. It is always a pleasure to engage in discussion with one who puts the one member above all else ...

HTH
Z

spgsc531

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

It is plain for all to see & understand what has been written and that a point of debate is upheld on a point of pedantic diversion. There have been two previous explanations of how/why the figure of '50p' used can easily be justified either by relating to time or applying the full financial benefit ..... however, even if these are considered by a closed pedantic mind as being illogical or unacceptable, the difference is of little consequence when related to the op's post ....

To anyone following this discussion, the level of irrelevance introduced by purely pedantic approach must seem quite outstanding when related to both the content and context of the original post. May I therefore be allowed to provide congratulations for the decision to employ such a cerebrally taxing strategy for so little benefit to all (but one ?) members, whether they be in favour of pv or not. It is always a pleasure to engage in discussion with one who puts the one member above all else ...

HTH
Z

I pointed out that there is no 50p+/kWh subsidy.

You seem incapable of just saying your wrong, and continue to obfuscate.

Cardew

John_Pierpoint

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Whilst I appreciate that this is just squabbling over 5p or so, can you really class export and leccy savings as a subsidy. Shouldn't the FIT be the correct 'subsidy'? Or if I'm being really pedantic, the old FIT reduced to take account of the low export rate of 3.3p, which is now a much fairer 4.64p (but the difference wrapped into the older and higher FIT). Being even more pedantic, shouldn't the export rate be bumped up about 10% (to 5p) to account for the lack of losses, that long distance transmission suffers.

Just a silly, fun mental exercise, but if I remember correctly the 16p FIT rate in Aug 2012 was reduced from a planned 16.85p when the export rate was bumped up from 3.2p to 4.5p, so they 'sort of' go hand in hand.

I understand your point that the investment wouldn't have taken place, but using your approach of looking for the extreme, let's consider as and when FIT is zero (or subsidy/missing leccy costs neutral). You wouldn't then class the export and leccy savings as a subsidy, so should you now?

Back to house prices, I can't help thinking that there are two issues here, finding a price that both parties are agreeable on for the house and PV system, then finding a value for the long-term investment (FIT) that goes with the house. Once fully explained and understood, it's simply back to two parties both agreeing on the same total value on the same day. Simples and very complicated all at the same time!

Mart.

Hi M

It's really a non-issue, the point being that a pedantic approach to personally attack a member over such a small and understandable difference deserved the reply which was requested. If the op had answered, then the goading would have worked as intended - so, considering that the post, which I considered unacceptable, had unexplainably been endorsed by at least one member, I took the challenge on and provided two alternative explanations. Various arguments can be made around the semantics, but it's plain for everyone to see that the original post made was correct within the context which it was made ....

Without doubt, there are individuals which join these boards simply for the sake of argument and conflict, some may even have multiple concurrent profiles which are used to effect whilst protecting their main profile(s) from possible official censure (ie PPR), with others simply creating new profiles when receiving a posting ban from the administrators. It is my considered opinion that it is fair to say that the recent member profile posting to inflame conflict likely falls into one of these categories and has been so since very soon after the profile first appeared - I believe that I was the first member to respond to this profile after created and had already formulated this view within a few days of what seemed to be deliberate inflaming of argument with a number of existing members in such a way where it simply seemed to be a continuation of previous exchanges.

If there are points to be made, then make the points .... simply posting 'ad hominem' to goad a response is wrong, both morally wrong and wrong in terms of the rules of this forum and should therefore be discouraged in the strongest possible way, by everyone ...

Regarding the house prices, I agree, it's all part of the negotiation & selling process ... however, for most, the process is sub-contracted to the selling agent, who, being professionals in this area and being paid handsomely for their services, should be familiar with both the existence, performance capabilities & financial returns from pv and all other forms of renewable energy provision in order to provide their client with the 'best possible' customer service resulting in the 'best possible' price - providing a lesser service would likely be considered by some as being a breach of contract.

HTH
Z