Solar Panel Guide Discussion

Freepost

Hi,

I have just read an article;

http://www.monbiot.com/2010/03/01/a-...green-rip-off/

the link being provided by 'digitaltoast'

Though there’s a system to ensure that functioning devices are installed, it can’t be long before thousands of petty criminals discover the perfect carousel fraud, bypassing their solar panels by connecting the incoming wire to the outgoing wire. By buying electricity for 7p and selling it for 44p (if you sell power to the grid rather than using it yourself, you get an extra 3p(17)), they’ll make a 600% profit. Amazingly the government has decided not to measure how much electricity people are selling, but “to pay export tariffs on the basis of estimated (deemed) exports.”(18) Elsewhere in its report it boasts of “encouraging a risk-based approach to audit and assurance”(19). Come on in you crims, the door is wide open.

This type of criminal activity sounds ever so easy and once it happens will probably have a knock-on effect of the government scrapping the FiTs unless some form of prevention is available.

F.

mickyduck

Hi have a 3.95 system installed in early july which has never delivered more than 3.5. Is this normal? I cannot believe that in the 5 weeks its been fitted we have never had a single day when the max theoretical delivery could be generated.

Doc_N

mickyduck wrote: »

Hi have a 3.95 system installed in early july which has never delivered more than 3.5. Is this normal? I cannot believe that in the 5 weeks its been fitted we have never had a single day when the max theoretical delivery could be generated.

You'll probably find that the inverter limits the effective capacity to 3.6 kW (mine does on a 3.96 kWp system, and so do many others), and your 3.5 kW is probably fine in the circumstances.

zeupater

mickyduck wrote: »

Hi have a 3.95 system installed in early july which has never delivered more than 3.5. Is this normal? I cannot believe that in the 5 weeks its been fitted we have never had a single day when the max theoretical delivery could be generated.

Hi

In addition to the above, where are you reading the 3.5kWh peak from ? ..... the longer the collection/reporting period is you'll find that the averaging effect will lower the maximum recorded performance, so the source of the data and the associated time period is important ...

HTH
Z

Cardew

mickyduck wrote: »

Hi have a 3.95 system installed in early july which has never delivered more than 3.5. Is this normal? I cannot believe that in the 5 weeks its been fitted we have never had a single day when the max theoretical delivery could be generated.

A 3.95kWp system does not have a maximum theoretical output of 3.95kW.

3.95kW is the output it will achieve in a laboratory with controlled conditions of 'sunlight', temperature etc.

Your output depends where you live in UK and the orientation of your roof.

If you have an unobstructed south facing roof and live in Cornwall you will exceed 3.95kW.

The same display in Northern Scotland will not approach 3.95kW.

Over and above that, as stated above, the inverter can limit the maximum output. They often fit lower capacity inverters on the grounds they are more efficient(and no doubt cheaper) and the efficiency savings for most of the year outweigh the very few periods that you would get peak output.

mickyduck

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

In addition to the above, where are you reading the 3.5kWh peak from ? ..... the longer the collection/reporting period is you'll find that the averaging effect will lower the maximum recorded performance, so the source of the data and the associated time period is important ...

HTH
Z

Readings taken fron my Webbox it sends a signal every 15 mins

zeupater

mickyduck wrote: »

Readings taken fron my Webbox it sends a signal every 15 mins

Hi

Readings are probably fine then .... 15 minute readings will be subject to averaging and will be effected by panel temperatures and the associated efficiency loss at around 0.5%/DegC above 25C / clouds etc .... when you have alternating cloud/sun conditions watch the webbox readings in real-time for a while to see true max performance .....

HTH
Z

thenudeone

Freepost wrote: »

Hi,

I have just read an article;

http://www.monbiot.com/2010/03/01/a-...green-rip-off/

the link being provided by 'digitaltoast'

This type of criminal activity sounds ever so easy and once it happens will probably have a knock-on effect of the government scrapping the FiTs unless some form of prevention is available.

F.

This possibility has been discussed before on the forums and is not nearly as likely as you think

You can only get FIT payments with an MCS-installed and registered system, i.e. you have paid £££s to install solar panels.
You have to be a homeowner to install panels.
The FIT provider knows the capacity and therefore the likely output over a year.
Any FIT meter readings which are very signifcantly over the theoretical output would be likely to be flagged as suspicious and lead to an investigation.
To manage this, you would need to be able to connect and disconnect the routing through the generation meter easily.
Therefore to avoid detection the most you can get from your FIT by feeding all your incoming supply through the generation meter is, say, 20% more than what you would get from just leaving the panels connected and getting FIT income legitimately. i.e. c. £300 pa
If you get caught all future genuine FIT payments would be stopped.

So is a homeowner going to risk all this plus a serious criminal record (which makes insurance almost impossible) for such a small payoff?

Yes- a dishonest MCS registered installer could register ficticious MCS installations but that wasn't the fraud you mentioned.

Freepost

thenudeone wrote: »

This possibility has been discussed before on the forums and is not nearly as likely as you think

You can only get FIT payments with an MCS-installed and registered system, i.e. you have paid £££s to install solar panels.
You have to be a homeowner to install panels.
The FIT provider knows the capacity and therefore the likely output over a year.
Any FIT meter readings which are very signifcantly over the theoretical output would be likely to be flagged as suspicious and lead to an investigation.
To manage this, you would need to be able to connect and disconnect the routing through the generation meter easily.
Therefore to avoid detection the most you can get from your FIT by feeding all your incoming supply through the generation meter is, say, 20% more than what you would get from just leaving the panels connected and getting FIT income legitimately. i.e. c. £300 pa
If you get caught all future genuine FIT payments would be stopped.

So is a homeowner going to risk all this plus a serious criminal record (which makes insurance almost impossible) for such a small payoff?

Yes- a dishonest MCS registered installer could register ficticious MCS installations but that wasn't the fraud you mentioned.

Hi, Thanks for responding. What you say is very interesting. Unfortunately I'm one of those people that when my attention is drawn to a scam I just imaging thousands of people doing it and spoiling the original concept for all the legitimate users. ie No more FiTs because the process has been abused.

One more question, although such a scam would be against the principle/spirit of the FiTs and ethically wrong would such criminal activity actually be illegal?

F.

zorber

Freepost wrote: »

Hi, Thanks for responding. What you say is very interesting. Unfortunately I'm one of those people that when my attention is drawn to a scam I just imaging thousands of people doing it and spoiling the original concept for all the legitimate users. ie No more FiTs because the process has been abused.

One more question, although such a scam would be against the principle/spirit of the FiTs and ethically wrong would such criminal activity actually be illegal?

F.

If it wasnt criminal activity then it wouldnt be illegal but as you state its criminal it will be illegal.
This activity would be classed as fraud.