We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Solar PV Prices Slashed After FIT Change
Comments
-
The average energy usage of a uk household is around 3800 to 5000 kWh, using 950 -1250 kWh a year generated from your solar panels is pretty realistic. Your example of 20 000 kWh is totally misleading and for an average house, a lot of small businesses don't even use that...£2,500 a year plus vat!
A 25% reduction in metered electric consumption is a pretty good estimation imo, people working from home, retired, shift workers etc could use much more of their "free" electric and get even bigger savings.
Welcome to the forum.
May I suggest that you read, and understand what was written, before jumping into print so quickly.
Firstly the average ENERGY usage in a UK house is not 'around 3,800kWh to 5,000kWh'.
According to Ofgem it is 19,800kWh. That comprises 3,300kWh being the average electricity use, and 16,500kWh gas(until recently it was 20,500kWh gas.)
'mickyfinn' posted that he:
As a new poster we can forgive him for not stating 3.2kWp;)factored in the now accepted 25% reduction in electricity use in using a 3.2kw SPV array
The Energy Saving Trust refer to 25% being the accepted percentage of the PV generated electricity being used in the house - not reducing electricity usage by 25%!
To illustrate this I gave an example of his panels producing 2,800kWh and thus 700kWh used in the house using the accepted 25% figure.
Nobody disputes he could use more, or less, than 700kWh and 950kWh to 1250kWh is perfectly possible - albeit above average.
To illustrate the point about the accepted 25% figure not being a reduction in household consumption, I gave an example:In my all electric house I use, say, 20,000kWh pa. Using your definition would mean I would save 5,000kWh pa - which would be difficult if you only generate 2,800kWh pa.
Would have made it easier for you to understand if I gave an example of 450,000kWh pa in my house and it couldn't save 112,500kWh pa if it only generates 2,800kWh pa?
Incidentally it is perfectly feasible to have someone in an all electric house using 20,000kWh pa. With an economy 7 tariff using say 75% on cheap rate that would cost £1,486 in the Midlands(including VAT).
There isn't an anti-PV solar bias on this forum - good clean 'Green' energy as far as most of us are concerned; albeit very expensive.
There is however a very strong feeling that the rate of FIT paid is crazy, especially when that subsidy is directly paid by consumers, many who cannot benefit from solar.
It is even more stupid to allow Rent a Roof companies to use a loophole to cash in on those subsidies.
Could you give examples of people 'who don't really know what they are talking about' As a new poster don't include yourself - we will let you off for your first post.;)
As you say it is all healthy debate!0 -
Cardew: Firstly the average ENERGY usage in a UK house is not 'around 3,800kWh to 5,000kWh'.
Average electrical energy, sorry I should have made that clearer, I though the discussion was about electrical energy savings here. I'm not aware of any solar panel that produce gas.
As a new poster we can forgive him for not stating 3.2kWp;)
Thanks for your forgiveness, and if we must be pedantic here I will forgive you for not using a capital W for the Watts , the 'p' is neither here nor there, the system is power is measured Watts; kilo=1000, Watt=unit of power.
The Energy Saving Trust refer to 25% being the accepted percentage
I hope we can all agree on that then, I accept that figure too.It is just splitting hairs anyway as I think we both knew what he meant by the 25% figure.
of the PV generated electricity being used in the house - not reducing electricity usage by 25%!
Generating and using 25% power yourself off grid will equal a 25% saving in metered electricityassuming other factors being equal, you know that too. On the FIT 'madness' private companies buying shares in power companies for profit seems ok, but these same bodies investing in 'Rent a Roof' renewables suddenly becomes immoral. Ever checked out the pubic subsidies on nuclear power?
Arguably the FIT has worked well: solar pv prices dropping quickly, FITs reducing quickly (maybe too quickly) and lots of uptake and changing public opinion on renewables.0 -
HiCardew: Firstly the average ENERGY usage in a UK house is not 'around 3,800kWh to 5,000kWh'.
Average electrical energy, sorry I should have made that clearer, I though the discussion was about electrical energy savings here. I'm not aware of any solar panel that produce gas.
As a new poster we can forgive him for not stating 3.2kWp;)
Thanks for your forgiveness, and if we must be pedantic here I will forgive you for not using a capital W for the Watts , the 'p' is neither here nor there, the system is power is measured Watts; kilo=1000, Watt=unit of power.
The Energy Saving Trust refer to 25% being the accepted percentage
I hope we can all agree on that then, I accept that figure too.It is just splitting hairs anyway as I think we both knew what he meant by the 25% figure.
of the PV generated electricity being used in the house - not reducing electricity usage by 25%!
Generating and using 25% power yourself off grid will equal a 25% saving in metered electricityassuming other factors being equal, you know that too. On the FIT 'madness' private companies buying shares in power companies for profit seems ok, but these same bodies investing in 'Rent a Roof' renewables suddenly becomes immoral. Ever checked out the pubic subsidies on nuclear power?
Arguably the FIT has worked well: solar pv prices dropping quickly, FITs reducing quickly (maybe too quickly) and lots of uptake and changing public opinion on renewables.
I think that there's a little confusion here ....
a) - " I though the discussion was about electrical energy savings here. I'm not aware of any solar panel that produce gas." .... agreed, it is, but the post you seemed to jump in on was an example to help explain the difference between 25% of generation and 25% of consumption, the OP mistakenly saw this percentage as being consumption, not generation.
b) - "Thanks for your forgiveness, and if we must be pedantic here I will forgive you for not using a capital W for the Watts , the 'p' is neither here nor there, the system is power is measured Watts" ... I believe that the context here is misplaced ... The forgiveness was for a new member using the term, not yourself .... the lower case 'w' was used by the new member, therefore your reluctance to forgive is totally unnecessary, however misplaced
. The 'p', well that refers to the potential 'p'eak generation capability of the solar array under nominal conditions and is generally accepted as being the correct way to convey this, for example: if a 4kWp system was to generate 3kW for 1 hour it will have generated 3kWh ....
c) "It is just splitting hairs anyway as I think we both knew what he meant by the 25% figure." ... this is exactly why the 25% consumption was being corrected by Cardew in the first instance .... as you disagreed with the correction it is likely that you misunderstood the context of what was being disagreed with .... there were no hairs to be split, there is likely a very great difference between generation & consumption for most ....
d) "Generating and using 25% power yourself off grid will equal a 25% saving in metered electricityassuming other factors being equal, you know that too." ..... again, this is totally incorrect in every case where total generation does not equal total consumption and confirms that the concept of a difference between generation and consumption hasn't been fully grasped (see (c) above) .... just think about the logic of what you have written .... also, if you're considering an array which is 'off grid' then there's a real difference which we haven't even touched upon yet.
HTH
Z"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
0 -
Am very new to this, but have a vetry large roof to be solar panelled. Go onto U-switch and says no free panels in my area. Is this right, and have I missed the boat?
Sorry, editing to say should have started new thread.0 -
HiSamsaragirl wrote: »Am very new to this, but have a vetry large roof to be solar panelled. Go onto U-switch and says no free panels in my area. Is this right, and have I missed the boat?
Sorry, editing to say should have started new thread.
There seem to be a number of RaR scheme operators scrambling around trying to maximise income at the moment, and a few have stated that they will still be fitting after the Dec12th cutoff date ....
What area of the country are you in, perhaps someone can tell you which RaR scheme operates locally ?
In the meantime, have a scan through the threads in this part of the forum which cover RaR.
HTH
Z"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle0 -
Firstly I did use a capital 'W' for Watts - where did I not use a capital? are you thinking of somebody else? - the person who worked for the National Grid perhaps? (note the capital N and G if you want to be anal)
Secondly you quite obviously do not know what kWp means when used in conjunction solar panels. The 'p' is not 'power' but 'peak' see:
<H4>What does kilowatt peak (kWp) actually mean?
</H4>It was totally unclear what he meant in his post - he gave no indication of his consumption and what he said was totally incorrect i.e.
Kilowatt peak stands for peak power. This value specifies the output power achieved by a Solar module under full solar radiation (under set Standard Test Conditions). Solar radiation of 1,000 watts per square meter is used to define standard conditions.
Peak power is also referred to as "nominal power" by most manufacturers. Since it is based on measurements under optimum conditions, the peak power is not the same as the power under actual radiation conditions. In practice, this will be approximately 15-20% lower due to the considerable heating of the solar cells.Firstly you are incorrect in stating the "now accepted 25% reduction in electricity use". IMO you are referring to the "now accepted 25% of generated electricity is used in the house".
You state:Generating and using 25% power yourself off grid will equal a 25% saving in metered electricityassuming other factors being equal, you know that too.
I really don't understand that statement at all. Using 25% of PV generated electricity(if that is what you mean) will only equal a 25% saving in metered electricity, when your annual in-house consumption is the same as your PV generated electricity. e.g. You generate 2,800kWh from your PV system and have an annual consumption of 2,800kWh. Thus 25%(700kWh) used in a property will equal a 25% saving in metered electricity.
I assume you understand now about how an all electric house can use 20,000kWh electricity?
The difference between subsidies for nuclear power and FIT has been discussed at length on MSE - the former being from the taxpayer/EEC and the latter a levy on consumers - including the poorest in the land. However it seems that you don't bother to read up first, but jump in with a critical initial post that was as inaccurate as it was patronising.
P.S.
Myself, and quite a few other posters on here, are Chartered Electrical Engineers and really do not need to be given the definition of a 'Watt'. Please note that whilst it is correct to use a capital 'W' in an abbreviation e.g. kW and MW, it is accepted convention to write 'watt' or watts' - as used in the IET publicationsthe system is power is measured Watts; kilo=1000, Watt=unit of power.
Electron. Syst. Softw. / Volume 4 / Issue 5
Watch your watts [directives]
Electron. Syst. Softw. -- October 2006 -- Volume 4, Issue 5, p.12–15
doi:10.1049/ess:200605020 -
The 'p', well that refers to the potential 'p'eak generation capability of the solar array under nominal conditions and is generally accepted as being the correct way to convey this, for example: if a 4kWp system was to generate 3kW for 1 hour it will have generated 3kWh ....
ok whatever, the units are kW, If you must be pedantic and exacting I think you'll find the correct terminology is actually TIC (total installed capacity) or TDC (total declared capacity) , depending upon the inverter rating, units are kW for all.
d) "Generating and using 25% power yourself off grid will equal a 25% saving in metered electricity assuming other factors being equal, you know that too."
..... again, this is totally incorrect in every case where total generation does not equal total consumption
Of course it is, but the only case that matters is the example I cited, I said where energy generated is used! Nice try!
...just think about the logic of what you have written
It is entirely logical! you are twisting my words up here.
... also, if you're considering an array which is 'off grid' then there's a real difference which we haven't even touched upon
yet.
'OFF grid' I meant the proportion of power generated by the householder not taken from the grid, If I had meant 'off grid' as in a household without any national grid connection, there would be no comparison anyway as 100% of energy would be self generated. This is a wind up right?0 -
The difference between subsidies for nuclear power and FIT has been discussed at length on MSE - the former being from the taxpayer/EEC and the latter a levy on consumers - including the poorest in the land. However it seems that you don't bother to read up first, but jump in with a critical initial post that was as inaccurate as it was patronising.
Whether the taxpayer/EEC or uk energy consumers are paying for the FIT, what difference does it make to anyone in reality?
I guess most uk residents are both paying taxes and a climate change levy on their energy bills - either way uk taxpayers/energy consumers are paying for nuclear subsidies and I don't really see much of a distinction. (not that I am against nuclear in general)
Don't forget, thousands of council/housing authority homes could have benefited from FIT subsidised solar installs before the plug was pulled.
Cardew, we cross posted so I didn't see your reply. Apologies - you didn't use the small w, but I really think that your pulling me up on kW versus and kWp is splitting hairs to say the least. We seem to be bickering about semantics here.
As you correctly state that the "25% saving" is actually only 25% of solar energy generated that gets used on average. For a house due South with a 3.8 kW TDC, generating maybe 3000 kWh plus annually, if they used only a quarter of that then they save 750 kWh. Using your and OFGEM's figure of 3300 kwh average electrical consumption that is just about 23% : So I really think that a 25% plus saving on the annual electricity bill is quite feasible.
I accept that a more average 2.4 kw install on a 50 degree off south roof probably won't achieve the 25% average electric bill reduction unless they are retired, working from home, unemployed, night shift workers etc or make some big changes to their energy usage imo.
One thing I hope we can agree on, there has been a lot of exaggerated ROI and annual electric savings claims from the solar industry which I think may have contributed to the excessive FIT reductions.
Just out of interest, how do you propose we should meet our 2020 renewable energy obligations?0 -
HiThe 'p', well that refers to the potential 'p'eak generation capability of the solar array under nominal conditions and is generally accepted as being the correct way to convey this, for example: if a 4kWp system was to generate 3kW for 1 hour it will have generated 3kWh ....
ok whatever, the units are kW, If you must be pedantic and exacting I think you'll find the correct terminology is actually TIC (total installed capacity) or TDC (total declared capacity) , depending upon the inverter rating, units are kW for all.
d) "Generating and using 25% power yourself off grid will equal a 25% saving in metered electricity assuming other factors being equal, you know that too."
..... again, this is totally incorrect in every case where total generation does not equal total consumption
Of course it is, but the only case that matters is the example I cited, I said where energy generated is used! Nice try!
...just think about the logic of what you have written
It is entirely logical! you are twisting my words up here.
... also, if you're considering an array which is 'off grid' then there's a real difference which we haven't even touched upon
yet.
'OFF grid' I meant the proportion of power generated by the householder not taken from the grid, If I had meant 'off grid' as in a household without any national grid connection, there would be no comparison anyway as 100% of energy would be self generated. This is a wind up right?
And with there being a difference between the definition of TIC & TDC as nameplate capacities then what would be written, two separate figures ? ..... Checking the previous posts I think that the root of this point is "and if we must be pedantic here I will forgive you for not using a capital W for the Watts , the 'p' is neither here nor there", and it is quite obvious that the 'p' does make a difference as it denotes the difference between a measure of capacity(kWp), power(kW) and energy(kWh) ....
Regarding ... "Of course it is, but the only case that matters is the example I cited, I said where energy generated is used! Nice try!" ...... what was actually written was .... "Generating and using 25% power yourself off grid will equal a 25% saving in metered electricityassuming other factors being equal" .... this is not what you have just claimed .... to clarify one more time and use another set of examples to demonstrate ...Generate 2000kWh .... Self consume 25% = 500kWh saving, therefore if the total consumption is 3300kWh the metered electricity saving is 15.2% (500/3300).I totally reject the premise that there is any form of word twisting here and that is clear for all to see within the posting history on this issue.
.......
Generate 2000kWh .... Self consume 25% = 500kWh saving, therefore if the total consumption is 20000kWh the metered electricity saving is 2.5% (500/20000).
.......
Or, has been previously muted, the only case where the generation & consumption percentage would be the same would be if generation=consumption ....
Generate 2000kWh .... Self consume 25% = 500kWh saving, therefore if the total consumption is 2000kWh the metered electricity saving is 25% (500/2000).
Regarding 'off grid', exactly, you obviously posted what you thought you meant, but in doing so the matter of using incorrect terminology conveyed something completely different, so no wind up intended, merely a pointer to using terminology in context.
HTH
Z"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards