Solar PV Prices Slashed After FIT Change

Cardew

SunReader wrote: »

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?

Firstly of course it makes a difference if taxpayer/EEC is paying the subsidy or the consumer paying FIT.

The poorest in the land, say, a pensioner in an all electric flat, who has insufficient income to pay tax, contributes directly in higher electricity prices to those who can afford £10,000+ or venture capitalists funding Rent a Roof companies. - The latter(about 0.6% of the UK population) enjoy the rewards paid by the other 99.4%, most of whom have no chance of ever having solar PV - can't afford it, tenants, live in flats, wrong roof etc.

If you read back you will see many posts about meeting our treaty obligations.

FIT encourages scores of thousands of tiny installations dotted all over the country - North Scotland - unsuitable roofs(orientation - shading etc). I cannot think of a bigger waste of resources - scaffolding, labour, equipment, plus a 25 year commitment for maintenance of these systems in far flung locations - not to mention the on-going accounting.

If our political masters mandate the use of solar PV as part of our obligation, then have huge solar farms in Devon and Cornwall on supermarket/factory roofs or Brownfield sites(disused airfields, mines etc)

Better still, the UK build solar farms in the South of France and bring the electricity to UK via the Interconnector(which currently(sorry) brings French nuclear energy to UK) It isn't used much during the day anyway.

I really don't know why you are going on about a 23% or 25% saving off an average annual electricity bill - of course it is possible and has not been disputed. The point made - which you seemed unable to grasp - was the 'accepted 25%' was of generated electricity, and not 25% of consumption.

Lastly, you entered this forum with keyboard blazing on first post, raising wrong terminology as a reason for criticising the quality of input to the various threads( a certain irony that you spelt electricity incorrectly;))

I've noticed that there is a lot of misleading info on these forums from people who don't really know what they are talking about, also a lot of anti-solar bias from certain poster's. One regular poster on this subject claims to have worked for the national grid yet cannot even use the correct units for electrcity(sic) consumption.

Despite explanations of how you had misunderstood the post that you rubbished, you carried on in the same vein.

Still water under the bridge - apology accepted, let's move on!

P.S.

I accept that a more average 2.4 kw install

What on earth;)

grahamc2003

Could I just clarify the 'p' thing, as in kWp, since its use really annoys me.

The term kWp is incorrect. The dimension of the metric is power, which has the unit kW, and not the unit kWp under any circumstances if used correctly. The use in solar is a !!!!!!!isation of the correct terminology. To indicate a particular power, like peak power, the correct terminology is to us the subscript 'p', and not the letter p. Using the letter 'p', as in kWp invents another unit 'kWp', which doesn't exist.

This sloppy terminolgy is very confusing - for example, people would naturally think kWp is an unspecific unit of measure in the same way as kWh is. So it's easy to see why most people can't get to grips with the correct unit kWh.

I just wish I could write out kW subscript p to show what the correct text should look like for peak power.

grahamc2003

SunReader wrote: »

I'm not aware of any solar panel that produce gas.

.

Then you don't appear to know how evacuated tube solar panels workj then. (They evaporate a liquid to produce gas which is then condnsed to release the heat it contains).

wuthton

I think some people need to step away from the keyboard.

I am at least going to sleep well tonight knowing that I shall never make the lower case "w" gaff again or mix up generated and consumed electricity. ;-)

zeupater

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Could I just clarify the 'p' thing, as in kWp, since its use really annoys me.

The term kWp is incorrect. The dimension of the metric is power, which has the unit kW, and not the unit kWp under any circumstances if used correctly. The use in solar is a !!!!!!!isation of the correct terminology. To indicate a particular power, like peak power, the correct terminology is to us the subscript 'p', and not the letter p. Using the letter 'p', as in kWp invents another unit 'kWp', which doesn't exist.

This sloppy terminolgy is very confusing - for example, people would naturally think kWp is an unspecific unit of measure in the same way as kWh is. So it's easy to see why most people can't get to grips with the correct unit kWh.

I just wish I could write out kW subscript p to show what the correct text should look like for peak power.

Hi

Agree, but there are a number of things to consider .... kW is a measure of instantaneous power and kWh is a measure of energy, both being derived directly from si units. kWp is a nominal power capacity rating under specific test conditions, so it really does make a lot of sense to differentiate ....

It's not only this forum which uses the term, whether correct or not, it seems to be universally recognised, possibly for the reason which you raised .... for example

SMA - (http://www.solar-is-future.com/faq-glossary/faq/photovoltaic-technology-and-how-it-works/what-does-kilowatt-peak-kwp-actually-mean/index.html)
Wiki - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt-peak)
IEEE - (http://www.ieee.org/searchresults/index.html?cx=006539740418318249752:f2h38l7gvis&cof=FORID:11&qp=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=kwp&siteurl=www.ieee.org/index.html)
United Nations - (http://search.un.org/search?q=kwp&output=xml_no_dtd&client=UN_Website_en&num=10&lr=lang_en&proxystylesheet=UN_Website_en&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&Submit=Go&sort=date:D:L:d1&ud=1&exclude_apps=1&site=un_org)
EU(JRC) - (http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/cmaps/eu_opt/pvgis_Europe-solar_opt_presentation.png)

.... so pretty universally applied, whether it's correct or not ..... probably so much so that there could be an argument for the term to be adopted as an official unit of peak capacity ??

I do note that National Grid only reference installed solar capacity as being kW, perhaps that could be just as confusing to many as kWp ... what exactly is the result of adding 850MW of nuclear generation capacity to a similar 850MW of solar ..... perhaps that's where the politicians get confused, at least if it was 850MW to 850MWp there would be an obvious question ... what is the result of simply adding together two different units without some form of conversion ? ... maybe even the politicians and their advisors would recognise a difference

HTH
Z

Cardew

In a similar vein, I was reading today(BBC website)that the term 'disgusting' should(technically) only apply to food or filth.

Originally "disgust" was used to express distaste for rotten food or filth. Today it's deployed against looters, phone hackers and others whose actions many find morally murky. So how did the meaning change so much?

Expressions change, and new ones accepted, words are hijacked - Warner Brother's film 'The Gay Parisian' was not actually about ..........

grahamc2003

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

It's not only this forum which uses the term, whether correct or not, it seems to be universally recognised, possibly for the reason which you raised .... for example

SMA - (http://www.solar-is-future.com/faq-glossary/faq/photovoltaic-technology-and-how-it-works/what-does-kilowatt-peak-kwp-actually-mean/index.html)
Wiki - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt-peak)
IEEE - (http://www.ieee.org/searchresults/index.html?cx=006539740418318249752:f2h38l7gvis&cof=FORID:11&qp=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=kwp&siteurl=www.ieee.org/index.html)
United Nations - (http://search.un.org/search?q=kwp&output=xml_no_dtd&client=UN_Website_en&num=10&lr=lang_en&proxystylesheet=UN_Website_en&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&Submit=Go&sort=date:D:L:d1&ud=1&exclude_apps=1&site=un_org)
EU(JRC) - (http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/cmaps/eu_opt/pvgis_Europe-solar_opt_presentation.png)

Z

Yes, I know. But to a tiny minority of people, that is very depressing.

(And just tbc, it isn't the kWp itself which is of concern, but what its acceptance, and the acceptance as correct, signifies).

thenudeone

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Then you don't appear to know how evacuated tube solar panels workj then. (They evaporate a liquid to produce gas which is then condnsed to release the heat it contains).

I saw something similar on a documentary. It's in the USA. Large arrays of curved reflectors concentrating the suns rays on a horizontal metal tube containing some form of oil. The reflectors changed position automatically as the sun got higher in the sky, in order to maximise the heat. The oil was used to heat water and produce steam, which generated electricity by use of a turbine.

Looked very impressive but I don't know whether it was cost-effective. I presume not (at the moment) otherwise there would be many more of them about.

grumpyoldsteve

We bought our system in September so are signed up to the higher FIT. However, seeing some positive posts on here about prices being slashed, I think I would rather have waited and got our system cheaper.

Even if the payback time is a little longer on the new 21p tariff, I think I would have rather paid less and kept a wad of the capital outlay sat in my bank ready to do some other home improvements, like a new condensing boiler -to replace our 29 year old Baxi Bermuda (which still works perfectly though).

The risk would have been if the stories of the doom of solar pv in the UK came true, and nobody was in business to install them so would not have ever got a system at all.

Yes hindsight is a wonderful thing :think:

Just hope that the stories of doom don't come true and the solar industry can keep thriving so that even more householders and communities can benefit from it - and not forgetting the benefit of contributing to a reduction of fossil fuel consumption