Renewables: "talking 'bout my generation"

zeupater

edwink wrote: »

Hi

Your target seems pretty low for a 3.99kWp system. Our 3.36kWp system has a target of 3200 and like you we are in Herts.

Edwink

Hi

The difference is around 8% on a kWh/kWp basis which would almost certainly be related to the difference in orientation (S v SW) ...

HTH
Z

Markj1110

2.93 O's yesterday, rubbish day, hail, rain and cloud!

shavy65

The last time I was due a payment over April 1st they worked out what percentage would be paid at the old and the new rate....depending on how much days there was before, and after, April 1st. If that makes sense.

Rheumatoid

need an average of 4 O's a day until the end of the month for PVGIS. Not looking promising.

EricMears

shavy65 wrote: »

The last time I was due a payment over April 1st they worked out what percentage would be paid at the old and the new rate....depending on how much days there was before, and after, April 1st. If that makes sense.

Of course it doesn't ! It would be a very strange year if the days after 1st April didn't have an average generation rate a lot higher than those before.


At least Scottish Power allowed me to submit an extra reading on 31st March 2012 and the year after that decided to revise my quarterly reading dates so that one of them would always be 31/3

shavy65

I never made their rules. What I`m trying to say is -

Say, for example my last reading was on 1st of March and my next one was submitted on 1st of June. They would pay 33.3% of my submitted reading at the lower rate and then 66.6% at the higher rate.

Do you understand now? :beer:

EricMears

shavy65 wrote: »

I never made their rules. What I`m trying to say is -

Say, for example my last reading was on 1st of March and my next one was submitted on 1st of June. They would pay 33.3% of my submitted reading at the lower rate and then 66.6% at the higher rate.

Do you understand now? :beer:

I never didn't understand it
My point was that the policy doesn't make sense.

shavy65

Thought I wasn`t explaining myself.
But yes, I agree, it`s not a fair policy.

edwink

edwink wrote: »

Hi Your target seems pretty low for a 3.99kWp system. Our 3.36kWp system has a target of 3200 and like you we are in Herts. Maybe worth you checking it. Edwink

The reason I asked the question is that some, not all on this thread often talk about their targets which to me makes the thread more interesting to read by waiting to see who is under target, who reaches their target and who manages to reach over their target. But, if some have taken their estimated figures from Classic PVGIS and others have taken them from Climate SAF PVGIS it makes stating their targets on here pointless. Also some are probably quoting targets from way before the estimates were increased on the PVGIS website.

Not rubbing salt in to anyone's wounds at all. But, quoting targets that are lower than they should be for our solar panels takes the fun out of this thread somewhat.

Edwink

defaultdriver

Hi,

I found reference to the PVGIS website from this forum, not quite sure which 'version' I used.
I may well be low, as the estimate I received from the quote was closer to 3700Kwh.
I had assumed (possibly incorrectly) that this might be slightly higher then what I would actually get.
If anyone has the link to the correct version that the majority are using, I will re-do the calculations (and make myself more miserable at the low generation lol)

edwink - Having noticed that you are in Herts I had kept a particular eye on your postings, and had noticed that generally on low generation days I was slightly higher and on good generation days your system was slightly higher then mine.

Not really had a very good chance to look at shading, but during a slightly sunny day I have noticed some shading from the chimney during the morning. Unfortunately it is a shared one with the neighbors and removing it is not going to be possible. Will have to have another look on a good day when I am at home.

defaultdriver