Renewables: "talking 'bout my generation"

John_Pierpoint

Oscargrouch wrote: »

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

.

It even more depends on when the installation was registered on the central database and then accepted by the FiT paying electricity supplier.

As someone with a friend who drove 1.5 hours down the motorway to get his documentation to National Power on 12 December 2011 and who personally sweated blood until he had signed up with British Gas in the period 14th February and 3rd March 2012.
I will always remember the 25 year experience - If I live that long.
(Those "prime mover advantage" dates are from memory and the 25 year deal is almost as long as the deal just offered to EDF and its Chinese investors for building atomic power stations).

legoman62

2.31 O's yesterday:D

Today may not be so good....It's 9.15 and I'm making 2W:(

EricMears

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

I don't find them in the least difficult to understand. I simply hold the view that correcting for one variable (even if it is the biggest) is a complete waste of time when there are so many other variables being ignored.

KevinG

EricMears wrote: »

I simply hold the view that correcting for one variable (even if it is the biggest) is a complete waste of time when there are so many other variables being ignored.

But it is the biggest variable so it isn't a waste of time, I don't understand the antipathy towards it on here, we all know what it means, we all know there are other variables, so what's the problem?

InVestor_2

KevinG wrote: »

But it is the biggest variable so it isn't a waste of time, I don't understand the antipathy towards it on here, we all know what it means, we all know there are other variables, so what's the problem?

Can't see how it is a bigger variable than say, the weather.


It's a meaningless number, good for a bit of fun, useless for comparing systems in different parts of the country.

KevinG

InVestor wrote: »

Can't see how it is a bigger variable than say, the weather.

I almost said "apart from the weather!" before realising how daft that would be

orrery

EricMears wrote: »

I don't find them in the least difficult to understand. I simply hold the view that correcting for one variable (even if it is the biggest) is a complete waste of time when there are so many other variables being ignored.

If we take this to the extreme than we'd all log on in the morning and report a generation of '1' unit for the previous day because all variables will have been corrected for!

EricMears

orrery wrote: »

If we take this to the extreme than we'd all log on in the morning and report a generation of '1' unit for the previous day because all variables will have been corrected for!

No, you'd never get to that stage because if you did manage to correct for all the expected variables you would have a result where any change meant that something unexpected had happened and it would allow you to investigate and find out what that was.

For instance, it might prompt you to look at the roof and find that something nasty had been deposited on the panels.

Martyn1981

orrery wrote: »

If we take this to the extreme than we'd all log on in the morning and report a generation of '1' unit for the previous day because all variables will have been corrected for!

That's exactly my thinking. I don't understand why anyone would want to 'correct' for other variables!

Orientation, pitch, shading and system efficiencies will show up in more or less O's. My E/W system will generate less kWh's than a due south system of identical size. By converting to kWh/kWp it can be compared (unfavourably) to any south system. Why on earth would you want to correct for these other variables, as that would prevent comparisons.

Even weather is of less importance when you think about it. Very high, or very low O's will reflect extreme weather. That is a fact, not a variable to be corrected. And over time, especially when comparing monthly O's, weather will have been partially normalised, though of course taking the UK as a whole there may be differences ....... but those differences will show up in the O's as they should be, not corrected for!

Take your generation, divide by system size, and you can immediately compare how that system has performed against any other, be it on the day, or a month, or a year. What's the problem?

Mart.

PS My system is just about sitting on an estimated 99%* for the month, which is a little surprising, as October hasn't seemed very nice, but must be ticking along nicely I suppose.

*Technically it's 96% ESE and 107% WNW, reflecting slightly better afternoon weather, than mornings, and higher efficiency system on the WNW. Correcting for those factors, would, I assume give figures of 99% & 99%. M.

The_Green_Hornet

Kilo watt hours per kilo watt peak (kWh/kWp) is a fairly standard term used throughout the solar pv industry to measure solar pv performance so I really don't understand the kerfuffle about using it on this forum.

Maybe someone's system isn't performing as well as they had expected.;)