Solar Panel Guide Discussion

grumpyoldsteve

lanstrom wrote: »

WELCOME to THE CLUB

Where abouts are you, and will you be putting your generation stats online ?

Is there an official site for this, or a forum on here for posting stats?
I imagine that some official body such as DECC, OFGEN or somewhere will be collecting stats as people submit generation readings for the FIT.

[Deleted User]

grumpyoldsteve wrote: »

Is there an official site for this, or a forum on here for posting stats?
I imagine that some official body such as DECC, OFGEN or somewhere will be collecting stats as people submit generation readings for the FIT.

You can post your generation stats here...

http://pvoutput.org/

[Deleted User]

Cardew wrote: »

What case would that be? Any time you are challenged on a statement you have made, you refuse to answer.

As was explained to you very simply by zeupater, there are new people reading this website and it is the nature of forums that views do get repeated.

Meanwhile, instead of one-liners that apparently you find amusing:D, why not give an reasoned argument against the view that FITs entail the poor in our society paying towards the better off?

or why we pay huge subsidies for thousands of tiny systems dotted over the UK instead of huge solar farms in the West Country.

Incidentally you have yet to come up with the names of contributors(that apparently everyone knows) who want to indulge in Schadenfreude. With relevant posts of course. See:

I'm sure the poor pay much less towards FITs than the middle classes pay in taxes for the poor's benefits...

There are also more poor folk than solar pv installs so until the tipping point is reached I see it as a non issue...

People installing solar PV are taking a risk and should be rewarded accordingly...

On another note it annoys me that my 4x4 is road taxed to death so is obviously subsidising newer vehicles that have a few green frills added so pay little or no road tax... If it's not called road tax anymore I'm sure people will know what I mean.

Life will never be fair.....................

grumpyoldsteve

Cardew wrote: »

or why we pay huge subsidies for thousands of tiny systems dotted over the UK instead of huge solar farms in the West Country.

I am not sure I see why you are apparently making the point that it is ok for the poor (and all energy bill payers in fact) to subsidise huge solar farms in the Weston Country, but not on rooftops.
And if that farm land that could otherwise be used for food, less land for food = higher food prices, which will also affect the poor.

Maybe you are referring to the fact that large solar farms now attract a lower subsidy, as will rooftop systems from next April as the government cuts those tariffs as well, apparently because solar is becoming cheaper day by day. Who knows, even poor people may be able to afford to get their own solar PV systems one day, just as they probably can all afford flat screen TV's which were out of reach for many a few years ago. There are a few council houses around our way who are already having solar fitted, and not by the local council!

The way I see it is that the renewable industry needed a kick start which should have happened much sooner, and some people; and not necessarily all rich, just maybe they worked all their life and lived sensibly within there means and accumulated some savings and decided to invest it in something that will produce something useful.

Cardew

grumpyoldsteve wrote: »

I am not sure I see why you are apparently making the point that it is ok for the poor (and all energy bill payers in fact) to subsidise huge solar farms in the Weston Country, but not on rooftops.
And if that farm land that could otherwise be used for food, less land for food = higher food prices, which will also affect the poor.

Maybe you are referring to the fact that large solar farms now attract a lower subsidy, as will rooftop systems from next April as the government cuts those tariffs as well, apparently because solar is becoming cheaper day by day. Who knows, even poor people may be able to afford to get their own solar PV systems one day, just as they probably can all afford flat screen TV's which were out of reach for many a few years ago. There are a few council houses around our way who are already having solar fitted, and not by the local council!

The way I see it is that the renewable industry needed a kick start which should have happened much sooner, and some people; and not necessarily all rich, just maybe they worked all their life and lived sensibly within there means and accumulated some savings and decided to invest it in something that will produce something useful.

1. I never proposed solar farms on farm land. I suggested that they should be on factory/supermarket roofs and brownfield sites in the West Country.

2. The only argument for Solar PV is that the Government needs it to fullfill its Treaty obligations. Well I cannot think of any more inefficient way of producing solar than tiny installations dotted all around the country, including North Scotland and paying FIT regardless of the suitability of the property.

3. If we have to use solar(which I don't accept at our latitudes) then large solar farms in Devon and Cornwall(where output is highest) make sense as the economies of scale are obvious.

4. Solar electricity could be generated at a fraction of the cost - a price that we all pay in our bills - and operators still make a controlled profit.

5. The recent reduction in FIT/ROC for large scale solar PV system(to which you refer) makes them uneconomic to install. Yet we allow 'Rent a Roof' companies to collect 44.85p per kWh for scores of thousands of tiny systems.

6 I cannot think of another government backed scheme where the very poorest in our country pay a levy to the well off - perhaps you can. It really is 'Robin Hood in Reverse'! It is no counter-argument, as some do, to quote various examples of Government waste.

7. These council houses with solar fitted, do the tenants get all the FIT? - I suspect not!!! In any case it doesn't counter the small scale criticism.

8 As for the people who 'have worked hard all their life' and invested in PV. Well again, as said many times, nobody on MSE has made any criticism of individuals 'cashing in' on an opportunity; so there is no need for anyone to be defensive. It still doesn't mean that the Government should have allowed such a system. After all some of the poorest in our society who pay toward these subsidies also 'have worked hard all their life'!

keith_r59

Cardew wrote: »

What case would that be?

That this thread is going around in circles, mainly thanks to you repeating the same old statements time and time again.

I'm sure that if you care to go back to the first time you made your statement about FITs being unfair (or anything else for that matter) you will find my original response.

My views, like yours, haven't changed but I don't feel the need to keep regurgitating them every day.

grumpyoldsteve

Cardew wrote: »

7. These council houses with solar fitted, do the tenants get all the FIT? - I suspect not!!! In any case it doesn't counter the small scale criticism.

Correction on these council houses.... I have been informed the council did fit them at the request of residents. The council collect the feed in tariff, but I can imagine that the residents don't have any objection to the FIT scheme as they are seeing savings on their bills.
As a council tax payer and an energy bill payer, I don't have any objection in subsiding the fitting of solar panels on council houses as I can see benefit for the local community over the longer term.

grumpyoldsteve

Cardew wrote: »

1. I never proposed solar farms on farm land. I suggested that they should be on factory/supermarket roofs and brownfield sites in the West Country.

So lets hope investors do this as well - we need a lot of solar capacity to be added to the whole energy mix. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

Cardew

keith_r59 wrote: »

That this thread is going around in circles, mainly thanks to you repeating the same old statements time and time again.

I'm sure that if you care to go back to the first time you made your statement about FITs being unfair (or anything else for that matter) you will find my original response.

My views, like yours, haven't changed but I don't feel the need to keep regurgitating them every day.

I am not aware you have expressed any views – other than the Schadenfreude quote.(which you refuse to back up) You just seem intent on curtailing any discussion on the demerits of the scheme.

If you have expressed views then perhaps you might heed this quote of zeupater, made in response to an earlier attempt by you to stifle discussion.

Hi

Considering that new contributors wish to take part in the discussion that will always be the case. I suppose that the alternative would be to ignore any new contributions or inform the contributor that their input is unwelcome or simply be very rude by instructing every new contributor to read the entire thread and every other related thread before anyone would take notice of their post .... in the meantime, if anyone wants to discuss, why not allow discussion even if it does mean that the same ground is revisited ..... afterall, it is a discussion thread .

HTH
Z

zeupater

orrery wrote: »

It would be of help to me, as I sit here awaiting installation of my 4kWp system in about 10 days time, to appreciate the generating capacity of a 4k system in different weather conditions:

Night = none (I can guess that one!)
Dark overcast, heavy rain =
Dark overcast, dry =
Light overcast =
50% cloud, no direct sun =
Clear winter day, full sun =
Clear summer day, full sun =

Would anyone venture estimates based on real experience?

regards, Ian

Hi

As noone else has made a stab at this to help you, it's hard to generalise but here's my guess at average spot readings based on a totally unscientific method ... wet finger in the air ..

Dark overcast, heavy rain = ~0% to 5%
Dark overcast, dry = ~0% to 5%
Light overcast = ~10%
50% cloud, no direct sun = ~25%
Clear winter day, full sun = ~ 75% to 80% (Frosty clear) .... ~60% (normal)
Clear summer day, full sun = ~75%

The full sun figures would be with the sun square on to the panels, with no shade .... of course, if I was to post on this again the figures would be different, but I think they're probably(ish) some where near the ballpark you would expect to see .....

Hope others with panels would generally agree ...

HTH
Z