Renewables: "talking 'bout my generation"

legoman62

1.94 O's...yes O's yesterday:D
Much better day. 7MW since install, with 3 weeks to go until 2nd full year:beer:
Could be another good day today:rotfl:

EricMears

Oscargrouch wrote: »

Problem is, if I post in watts, that doesn't take orientation into consideration for comparisons..

And just how do these O things of yours make allowance for panel orientation ? My major objection to the concept is that they don't !

If you really wanted a unit that would compare one system with another, you'd really need to divide daily generation by a figure you'd obtain by working out what the pvgis forecast for the day would have been. But even that is flawed in that one location might well have had a nice sunny day whereas somewhere just ten miles away could have had completely different conditions.

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

And just how do these O things of yours make allowance for panel orientation ? My major objection to the concept is that they don't !

Simples. Having removed size by dividing generation by kWp, you will then start to see orientation reflected in the O's as better orientation means (on average) more O's, and worse orientation like mine, means (on average) less O's. As days become weeks, become months, become years the difference between O's will highlight differences between systems.

Before any true comparison can be made, many factors will need to be considered, but since system size is by far the single biggest factor, removing it from the equation is the single best move we can make.

Simple question - if you wanted to compare two systems, would you, or would you not first account for system size before moving on to the next factor?

Doesn't mean O's are perfect, or even close to perfect, but they are far, far, far, far, far better than just kWh's which contain all of the remaining unknowns + system size differences.

Mart.

InVestor_2

There's only one perfect....


£ £ £

John_Pierpoint

Cameron has already undertaken to default on some of the green measures, don't encourage him.

Meanwhile the French default on their equivalent of ISA promises.
http://fr.irefeurope.org/Plan-d-Epargne-en-Actions-spoliation-organisee,a2598

Shame the COOP's attempt to do the same thing with their bonds did not work out?

Hair cuts all round?.

InVestor_2

£8.00 today (16.5 kWh)


forecasting 88% of PVGIS for the month, at least it's only down £15

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Simples. Having removed size by dividing generation by kWp, you will then start to see orientation reflected in the O's as better orientation means (on average) more O's, and worse orientation like mine, means (on average) less O's. As days become weeks, become months, become years the difference between O's will highlight differences between systems.

Before any true comparison can be made, many factors will need to be considered, but since system size is by far the single biggest factor, removing it from the equation is the single best move we can make.

Simple question - if you wanted to compare two systems, would you, or would you not first account for system size before moving on to the next factor?

Doesn't mean O's are perfect, or even close to perfect, but they are far, far, far, far, far better than just kWh's which contain all of the remaining unknowns + system size differences.

Mart.

It may well be the 'biggest influence' but it's far from being the only one or even the only significant one.

Orientation is pretty important
Shade can be a real killer
And there are parts of the country where fog is much more prevalent than the 'norm.


It's a bit like trying to assess which car is the most economical by adding a weighting factor for engine size but completely ignoring vehicle weight or drag coefficient.

tunnel

Just a few days away and all hell breaks loose. Might have known Mr "O" would be the one to stir things up.

Seems to be a cycle of a couple of bad days followed by "one" goodish day.....hence....3 O's, that's 12kWh, that's 12000Wh's....it also passes the T test, which is more than enough money generated to cover the cost of any imports:rotfl:

Oscargrouch

EricMears wrote: »

And just how do these O things of yours make allowance for panel orientation ? My major objection to the concept is that they don't !

If you really wanted a unit that would compare one system with another, you'd really need to divide daily generation by a figure you'd obtain by working out what the pvgis forecast for the day would have been. But even that is flawed in that one location might well have had a nice sunny day whereas somewhere just ten miles away could have had completely different conditions.

I think your missing the point:

O's are not mine Eric; they merely relate to kWp. You may call them E's if you want. I just cannot understand why you find them so difficult to understand....:D

Or perhaps you are saying that if this thread was a TV series called "Point Less" it would be the highest scorer, & the whole thing is pointless: if so, why bother posting at all if there are too many variables ?..:eek:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Simples. Having removed size by dividing generation by kWp, you will then start to see orientation reflected in the O's as better orientation means (on average) more O's, and worse orientation like mine, means (on average) less O's. As days become weeks, become months, become years the difference between O's will highlight differences between systems.

Before any true comparison can be made, many factors will need to be considered, but since system size is by far the single biggest factor, removing it from the equation is the single best move we can make.

Simple question - if you wanted to compare two systems, would you, or would you not first account for system size before moving on to the next factor?

Doesn't mean O's are perfect, or even close to perfect, but they are far, far, far, far, far better than just kWh's which contain all of the remaining unknowns + system size differences.

Mart.

Well said........

InVestor wrote: »

There's only one perfect....


£ £ £

Sorry, but as an InVestor you should know that the rate of investment return, depends on the original sum invested. Think about it....

With all the exitement, nearly forgot to post my E's or 2.72 O's.

InVestor_2

Oscargrouch wrote: »

I think your missing the point:

O's are not mine Eric; they merely relate to kWp. You may call them E's if you want. I just cannot understand why you find them so difficult to understand....:D

Or perhaps you are saying that if this thread was a TV series called "Point Less" it would be the highest scorer, & the whole thing is pointless: if so, why bother posting at all if there are too many variables ?..:eek:



Well said........



Sorry, but as an InVestor you should know that the rate of investment return, depends on the original sum invested. Think about it....

With all the exitement, nearly forgot to post my E's or 2.72 O's.

Please explain how my £ (fun!) post has anything to do with your statement?


It's quite clear that you have small system syndrome, inventing an 'O' system that is completely flawed as discussed several times.


You enjoy your 'O''s. I'll enjoy my £