Renewables: "talking 'bout my generation"

shafeeq

Not too much to report... arrrggggg

Thursday 2.24 O's...
yesterday even better 0.41 O's...

Shafeeq

Martyn1981

tunnel wrote: »

That's an easy one, Oscar owes Mart 55.8kWh from his stash, not rocket science to work out either, you only need to look at Oscar's signature.


Nice win Mart

Technically Oscar didn't accept the bet before Eric revealed the outcome, so I won't hold him responsible, or charge him a 'vig'. :shocked:

EricMears wrote: »

But it reveals another problem with these mythical Os

Hiya Eric, appreciate you're just being playful, but since you're well aware that the "O" is just a slang nickname on here for kWh/kWp, any chance you could avoid any accidental misunderstanding and change that statement to:-

"But it reveals another problem with these worldwide, industry standard, step one in any comparison Os"

Cheers.

Mart.

EricMears

tunnel wrote: »

That's an easy one, Oscar owes Mart 55.8kWh from his stash, not rocket science to work out either, you only need to look at Oscar's signature.

Nice win Mart

That rather depends on whether the bet was in Oscar_Os or Martyn_Os ! Or indeed since it was my reaction being discussed maybe Eric_Os would be the figure to use. That rather reinforces my point that they're not a valid unit of comparison.


BTW, why do people always refer to Rocket Science as being difficult to understand. It's just a matter of pointing nose in right direction, adding a calculated amount of thrust and making a few corrections for external factors. All the sums were being done in the 50s & 60s with calculators less advanced than today's mobile phones !

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Technically Oscar didn't accept the bet before Eric revealed the outcome, so I won't hold him responsible, or charge him a 'vig'. :shocked:



Hiya Eric, appreciate you're just being playful, but since you're well aware that the "O" is just a slang nickname on here for kWh/kWp, any chance you could avoid any accidental misunderstanding and change that statement to:-

"But it reveals another problem with these worldwide, industry standard, step one in any comparison Os"

Cheers.

Mart.

None whatsoever. As you say it's merely 'step 1' of any useful comparison. Somewhat akin to discussing relative economies of two different cars whilst forgetting to mention that one of them barely has room for the driver but the other carries driver and six passengers with ease.


A full comparison might have some merit but a partial one is a wasted effort.

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

None whatsoever. As you say it's merely 'step 1' of any useful comparison. Somewhat akin to discussing relative economies of two different cars whilst forgetting to mention that one of them barely has room for the driver but the other carries driver and six passengers with ease.

A full comparison might have some merit but a partial one is a wasted effort.

Ahhhh. I think I finally understand what you are going on about, you don't believe something can be compared without knowing all the background factors ...... have I got it?

So, the two of us are told about 2 people, person A who is six feet tall, and person B who is 5 feet tall.

You refuse to make any comparisons without knowing their age (and growth cycle), their sex, race, nationality, nutritional history, when they woke (and how much exercise/heavy work they've done) etc etc.

I, on the other hand, just conclude that today person A is taller than person B.

Or, if comparing fuel economy (not speed, or occupancy) a car obtaining 30mpg is burning less fuel per mile than a car achieving 20mpg.

Since the height, mpg or kWh/kWp already take account of all the factors that led to that number in the first place, once you have 2 or more numbers, you can then easily compare them.

O so simple. :T

Mart.

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

A full comparison might have some merit but a partial one is a wasted effort.

BTW, you may feel that Os (kWhs/kWp) are meaningless, or a partial comparison is a wasted effort, but .....

if I was comparing two cars, one getting 35mpg and one getting 40mpg, and the salesman of the 35mpg car told me that it wasn't a fair comparison as the 40mpg car only achieved this because it was lighter, had better aerodynamics, and a more efficient engine, I'd laugh myself stupid(er).

Mart.

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

BTW, you may feel that Os (kWhs/kWp) are meaningless, or a partial comparison is a wasted effort, but .....

if I was comparing two cars, one getting 35mpg and one getting 40mpg, and the salesman of the 35mpg car told me that it wasn't a fair comparison as the 40mpg car only achieved this because it was lighter, had better aerodynamics, and a more efficient engine, I'd laugh myself stupid(er).

Mart.

You don't seem to understand the point !

If I tell you that my 600cc 'smartcar' does 75mpg would you scrap your 6 litre Bentley that's only doing 10mpg in favour of buying a car like mine ? Of course not !

Similarly, if you have SPs facing North and at a very steep angle and partially shaded you wouldn't expect them to perform anything like as well as your neighbour's where his face true South, are set at an optimum pitch and completely shade-free. Simply dividing output by a theoretical panel rating without knowing the ancillary factors won't account for all the 'minor' factors which in the particular case described would probably become a 'major' factor !

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

You don't seem to understand the point !

If I tell you that my 600cc 'smartcar' does 75mpg would you scrap your 6 litre Bentley that's only doing 10mpg in favour of buying a car like mine ? Of course not !

Not missing anything.

If we're comparing fuel economy, is 75mpg bigger/better than 10mpg? Yes it is.

So the smartcar (during that comparison period) operated more efficiently than the Bentley.

You can make this as complicated as you want, (and come up with a thousand reasons for the difference between any 2 Os) but it doesn't prevent comparisons.

I suspect you are so 'stuck' trying to explain the reason for the differences, that you've missed the point entirely, we just want to compare the results ......... and have a bit of fun doing so ......... please?

Mart.

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

Similarly, if you have SPs facing North and at a very steep angle and partially shaded you wouldn't expect them to perform anything like as well as your neighbour's where his face true South, are set at an optimum pitch and completely shade-free. Simply dividing output by a theoretical panel rating without knowing the ancillary factors won't account for all the 'minor' factors which in the particular case described would probably become a 'major' factor !

I refer you back to the example of the two people:

The 6 feet person is still taller than the 5 foot person, regardless of the reasons why. Valid comparison made.

Mart.

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I suspect you are so 'stuck' trying to explain the reason for the differences, that you've missed the point entirely, we just want to compare the results ......... and have a bit of fun doing so ......... please?

Mart.

But when you ignore major differences in the two systems the 'comparison' becomes completely meaningless. Where's the 'fun' in that ?