Renewables: "talking 'bout my generation"

InVestor_2

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The three primary reasons why I didn't respond were:

1. The comparison (for me) is as clear as day, whether you are looking at it through northern English sunshine, or southern English fog, it's 10:1. Pointing out this utterly obvious fact, seemed unnecessary.

2. It appeared to be a trap, as both systems are of the same size, and since there wasn't a third and differing system (eg 3.92kWp), the comparison can be done directly from the generation figures, without first accounting for the system size.

3. And the main reason I didn't respond, is that you used two different measures, the first system you reported in energy (kWh), the second you reported in power (kW). So they are not actually comparable as we don't know what the second system generated. This may have been a mistake, or it may also have been a trap (I suspect a trap, since you didn't correct for it in the re-posting), either way, it seemed best to ignore.

If you want to use kWh's, then use them. If you want to use kWh/kWp, then use them. If you want to compare generation (or not) then do (or don't). If you don't want to discuss generation, then fine. But why keep telling us that you don't want to discuss or compare generation, on a thread called 'talking bout my generation'?

Oh yes, and also, something that I've not mentioned before as it might have just encouraged you to go on even longer. Your 'compare the money' argument is laughable. The amount of income means nothing without first taking account of the amount of money spent/invested in the system, so in reality you should be reporting £'s earned/£'s invested ......... not dissimilar to kWh/kWp (energy earned/system size investment) ........ when you think about it.

Mart.

1. So you agree that the 'O' is meaningless as used in this thread? As my example clearly shows?

2. I fail to see how an example of a different size system making exactly the same point was necessary. The point is about how meaningless the 'O' is to compare differing systems in differing locations on a daily basis.

3. Trap? lol. It was a typo but regardless makes no difference to the point being made. You can take it I meant 1 kWh. As already mentioned it makes no difference to the point I was making.

I have been posting my income for quite a few months, no-one had a problem before.

tunnel

InVestor wrote: »

1.
I have been posting my income for quite a few months, no-one had a problem before.

Nobody has a problem with what you post, the only problem is with you trying to ridicule a system that quite a few on here like to use. If you don't like the "O" you can ignore those posts yet you continue with your banter of how useless it is.

Most could say that what you post is ridiculous as no one has a clue of the size of your system, commissioning date or orientation, i personally just scroll past as i have no clue as to what your system is.

Admittedly you could say the same for me as my signature doesn't give all the information just an overview

John_Pierpoint

Given the actual kWh figure and the "O" value it is not rocket science to calculate the kWp of the system (or something near to it).

InVestor_2

tunnel wrote: »

Nobody has a problem with what you post, the only problem is with you trying to ridicule a system that quite a few on here like to use. If you don't like the "O" you can ignore those posts yet you continue with your banter of how useless it is.

Most could say that what you post is ridiculous as no one has a clue of the size of your system, commissioning date or orientation, i personally just scroll past as i have no clue as to what your system is.

Admittedly you could say the same for me as my signature doesn't give all the information just an overview

I haven't ridiculed it. I merely pointed out that it is meaningless for comparing different systems in different locations.

I haven't said it's useless just meaningless in the context used in this thread.

I have never said people shouldn't post their 'O's, just pointed out that it is meaningless for comparison to any other system on that day.

KevinG

InVestor wrote: »

I have never said people shouldn't post their 'O's, just pointed out that it is meaningless for comparison to any other system on that day.

And posting an income figure is even more meaningless for comparison, other than on that one criterion, as it takes no account of the cost of the system or the FiT rate.

Kernel_Sanders

InVestor wrote: »

Classic case of oscargrouch having small man sysndrome
I wonder what else he's under-endowed with

InVestor wrote: »

At least I don't have to try and compensate for having a little one and failure to grasp simple maths with dull wit

InVestor wrote: »

Why do you keep trying these pathetic childish digs?

Can you see the hypocrisy here?
That's not the point though. Oscar may be the most annoying contributor to this thread but he doesn't resort to abuse, whatever the provocation. If you cannot have a go at others in a more subtle way then I'd rather you didn't post at all. This would include posts like this...

InVestor wrote: »

I think your incredibly stupid if you think income is meaningless

Martyn1981

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

Oscar may be the most annoying contributor to this thread but he doesn't resort to abuse, whatever the provocation.

I'm sorry Mr Sanders, but I think that's extremely rude.

After all the effort I've gone to over the years, only to be completely ignored when it comes to the end of year final, is a disgrace. I was robbed! I bet it's a fix and you're operating some sort of casting couch system?

Please have a re-think, and at the very least, confirm that it was a particularly close call.

Mart (aka dic (disappointed in Cardiff))

PS 0.23 Os today.

Oscargrouch

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

Oscar may be the most annoying contributor to this thread but he doesn't resort to abuse, whatever the provocation.

Ahh, the Godfather of the thread has mentioned me.. What's me prize KS; a gold plated panel on me roof (ooops sorry, roove), with your picture on it.....:rotfl:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm sorry Mr Sanders, but I think that's extremely rude.
After all the effort I've gone to over the years, only to be completely ignored when it comes to the end of year final, is a disgrace. I was robbed! I bet it's a fix and you're operating some sort of casting couch system?
Please have a re-think, and at the very least, confirm that it was a particularly close call.
Mart (aka dic (disappointed in Cardiff))
PS 0.23 Os today.

Maybe next year Mart, no hard feelings...... (That's you on the right)

O'hh, nearly forgot the main point; a very high 0.12 O's....

legoman62

Only 0.175 O's on a cold, wet and windy day on the E. Coast:D

jimjames

Surprisingly December was ok here, ended up over 100kWh for the month which was better than last year despite all the wind and rain. Interesting to compare month by month over the last 3 years with data building up.

http://solar-panels-review.321web.co.uk/solar-panel-generation-months-compared.php

Having just read some of the previous posts I think I ought to do a conversion so you actually know what my 100kWh and 3095kWh for year relate to:

December 33 Os
2013 comes in at 1032 Os for the year

Seems like a reasonable way to compare - location makes it possible to see the difference too.