Renewables: "talking 'bout my generation"

Oscargrouch

At exactly 16:48 recorded was a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht3Al9H3iUM

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

tunnel

WNW 4.5kWh(1.8 O's)
ESE 8.2kWh(4.18 O's)
SSW 9.43kWh(4.62 O's)


Combined 10.6 O's...double HAWAII...woohoo


All this sun has made me delirious

sly_dog_jonah

19.3kWh in Cider Country where it is was cloudless skies all day. A mighty 5.22 O's. 12kWh into the hot water tank too via the ImmerSUN, might be time to turn the hot water programme off soon.

InVestor_2

Dave_Fowler wrote: »

I've two near identical kWp systems. One is using a single MPP inverter (2 x 8 panel strings in parallel) and the other, with 12 panels, is using Solar Edge technology.

Whilst the money I get from FITs is of great interest to me, the fact that one system generated £1.40 and the other £4.86 would not be a good way of comparing the systems as far as how well they are working.

To me the efficiency of the two systems is also very important; it shows the relative performance of the two systems. Hence I tend to compare the Os of the two systems rather than how much money they have generated.

From the efficiency figures I am able to recommend (or not) the two quite different generation systems.

Dave F

I have no idea the point of your post, but you seem to have many thanks.

Please point out where i have ever said that £ is a good way of comparing systems! I post £ (and kWh) as this is a generation thread,right?

You start the post stating you have two near identical systems, then finish the post stating they are quite different!

By having systems with different orientation and pitch, ignoring everything else you make a great case of how meaningless the 'O' is. Even at the same location.

You need to understand how your recommendations are flawed.

InVestor_2

£11.00 today (22.7 kWh)

Dave_Fowler

InVestor wrote: »

I have no idea the point of your post, but you seem to have many thanks.

Please point out where i have ever said that £ is a good way of comparing systems! I post £ (and kWh) as this is a generation thread,right?

You start the post stating you have two near identical systems, then finish the post stating they are quite different!

By having systems with different orientation and pitch, ignoring everything else you make a great case of how meaningless the 'O' is. Even at the same location.

You need to understand how your recommendations are flawed.

At the start of my post I said the two systems were nearly identical kWp. I then explained the two systems had quite different generation technologies.

If you look at my signature you will also see that the two systems are aligned with only 4 degrees difference from true South - one is -4 degrees and the other +8. This is hardly any difference when you consider that the sun itself at noon varies more than this amount from true South from time to time during the year.

Also, the roof pitch, at this time of the year, makes little difference. One roof is best for summer generation, the other best for winter generation. So I can't see how greatly flawed any recommendation I may give will be.

I believe that comparing the efficiencies of the two systems throughout the year gives a very good insight into the advantages of one technology over the other for different lighting conditions, temperatures and day-lengths.

Dave F

Oscargrouch

InVestor wrote: »

I have no idea the point of your post, but you seem to have many thanks.

From that comment, I would respectfully suggest that you give up, and admit you are wrong; as you are having a discussion with a contributor who really knows what they are talking about....:rotfl:

Anyway, back to reality.

Great day today for this time of year compared to last year; a HAWAII + 0.16 O's. What a great result, forecasts were correct, what more can be said apart from....

tunnel

Oscargrouch wrote: »

Great day today for this time of year compared to last year

I think this time last year my panels had a lovely white sheen to them and were doing NO O's

legoman62

Didn't quite make an Hawaii today, but 3.57 O's which is my best for some time:T

Martyn1981

InVestor wrote: »

So, one of the main promoters of the 'O' are calling me Lord Vestor for just pointing out just how meaningless the 'O' is.

Oh Lordy! I thought you'd find that really funny, and revel in the Lord Vestor title, getting on board with the joke. But it seems I misjudged the situation, and probably don't need to ask the question "Too soon?"

Looking back, I'm just glad I bottled it and removed [STRIKE]Lord Vardew[/STRIKE] from the list! :rotfl:

Go on, cheer up, it's sunny, so whether it's kWhs, Os, or crisp pound notes (remember them?) it's still a good day.

InVestor wrote: »

It seems I'll just continue doing the (Really Evil) thing of pointing out it is a meaningless way of comparing different systems (especially on a daily basis).

Can you have 'especially meaningless', is that like 'very unique'? Or is it a double negative and becomes meaning? Maybe, it's less than meaningless, and becomes negative meaning.

I'm lost as to what a negative meaning could be, but will assume it's the polar opposite, so South becomes North, black becomes white, and Os become ....... Bs? Since I have 2 TGM's I could mix it up and report each day on how much BO I have!

Anyway's in a gesture of peace and harmony, I'll report today's generation of 16.7kWhs as a swarm (3Bs).

Hope that's acceptable.

Mart.

PS Reading this post back, I think I now understand the definition of especially meaningless. M.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW5dy5uqptI