Does anyone here have an ideological objection to Solar?

jamesingram

Most good installers should be able to do a ground mounted system.
benefit of sticking on your roof is , it's out the way , and less likely to be shaded.

rogerblack

Energetic wrote: »

We will be dropping it from our MCS this year as the intelligent immersion controllers i've mentioned on the other thread with a >2kW PV system do the same thing with a lot less to go wrong. No extremely hot, high pressure water piping around your living space. No annual servicing required..

As an aside, I really, really hope this is fixed, so that it is not permitted to fit these sorts of devices, if the property has mains gas.
Or if you do, FIT is only paid on exported units.

Every electricity user is being taxed to provide FIT payments to aid in CO2 reduction.
Installation of a immersion controller in a property with gas means that we are paying effectively twice the FIT for the carbon saving.

The solar industry moving over to pushing these devices, for their own profit (quite reasonably) means that the initial rationale for the FIT needs rethought in the light of their use.

Energetic_2

Martyn1981 wrote: »

As far as PV goes, the future is very bright. I was just reading about the EMMA GVS:


Great idea, rather than cap generation at 3.68kW, if the DNO won’t allow more, you cap export instead. Already approved by one DNO and being considered by others. This also gets us past one of the UK hurdles, tariff drop at 4kWp. Since install prices (per kWp) drop rapidly from about 2kWp onwards, I reckon anyone that can install and use 5 to 6kWp should.

At a sustained 90% of kWp and some baseload consumption, that would only mean finding a home for about 1.5kWh for maybe 4hrs per day (10am to 2pm) on the sunnier days. Would have thought 6kWh of heated water per day would be reasonable and hopefully the ‘required’ heat dump would never be needed.

We are bound to see more and more ideas and tech like this arriving, maximising the benefits of PV, improving the financial viability, and further reducing the FIT as installs roll out.

I reckon the next big milestone will be if domestic UK PV can match the proposed new nuclear reactors, both on cost of construction/running per kWh, and on a subsidy basis too. I think we are close, but nuclear will always have the 'predictability' trump card.

Mart.

The emma is an amazing bit of kit, it can even allow you to have a 4kw pv system with a 3.5kw wind turbine, provided you can use the energy or are willing to dump it. Seen any prices though ;-)

Energetic_2

jamesingram wrote: »

Most good installers should be able to do a ground mounted system.
benefit of sticking on your roof is , it's out the way , and less likely to be shaded.

True, Find a good local installer. there are many at:
electriciansforums.co.uk/photovoltaic-solar-panels-green-energy-forum/
That will be able to advise you. My avdise is find someone local and knowledgable and in these uncertain times best to ask for warranty insurance.

Energetic_2

rogerblack wrote: »

As an aside, I really, really hope this is fixed, so that it is not permitted to fit these sorts of devices, if the property has mains gas.
Or if you do, FIT is only paid on exported units.

Every electricity user is being taxed to provide FIT payments to aid in CO2 reduction.
Installation of a immersion controller in a property with gas means that we are paying effectively twice the FIT for the carbon saving.

The solar industry moving over to pushing these devices, for their own profit (quite reasonably) means that the initial rationale for the FIT needs rethought in the light of their use.

The payback it pretty marginal if you have mains gas, it's not really viable financially unless you have a big HW demand(lots of kids/teenagers etc) but some people are happy to pay for the unit for it to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.

For those on Oil or LPG its a brilliant option. These installations are not really profitable for us in the numbers we are doing but gives us something to do between wood burners untill the awareness of the stonking returns on PV kicks in again (hopefully soon, its been a tough year for many in this industry).

Not sure what you're getting at about paying fits twice? The energy is yours to use if you can and most people want to use as much as they can. These devices heat HW from the sun, zero emissions.

rogerblack

Energetic wrote: »

T
Not sure what you're getting at about paying fits twice? The energy is yours to use if you can and most people want to use as much as they can. These devices heat HW from the sun, zero emissions.

The FIT is paid with the aim of reducing CO2 emissions.
If the houseowner feeds 1kWh into the grid, they effectively remove the need to burn 3kWh or so of gas at the power station (and burn 1kWh of gas locally)

If they use that power locally, to replace gas, they are reducing their gas usage, true, but only by 1kWh.

The price of carbon reduction doubles for self-consumed units, if these substitute for gas.

Are there other goals than carbon reduction for FITs - certainly - but it's one of the primary drivers, hence it's reasonable to question the routine installation of devices which will reduce CO2 saving per unit of FIT paid.

grahamc2003

Energetic wrote: »

Not sure what you're getting at about paying fits twice? The energy is yours to use if you can and most people want to use as much as they can. These devices heat HW from the sun, zero emissions.

What he's getting at is that this is a 'green and ethical' board, and solar is premised on co2 reductions and 'green' considerations.

The fitting of an export-minimising device is the opposite of 'green', and basically a profit maximising device at the expense of the environement, and the personal gain vs green considerations balance falls well onto the personal gain side.


The customers who pay the fit for the 1kWh of generation which is diverted into the owners tank instead of being exported then have to pay again foir a further 1kW to be generated because the diverted kWh didn't make the local grid. On the grid it has a 13p value, in the owners tank a 3p value usually.

Edit - posted before I'd seen Roger had already replied

zeupater

jamesingram wrote: »

Yes I'm starting to think the same . For my own place I'd left space for 6m2 Thermal , but might well fill it with PV and go the immersion route, via the inverter built in relay and contactors on the board ( 4000TL).
Even considering sticking up a arrray on the NW pitch.

Like you say, far easier running a couple of cables.

I'm still tempted by the thermal store route with ST , though , possibly with it making a contribution to space heating , Like Mart says , problem dumping the heat in the summer .
Unless you've interseasonal heat storage , which would be tricky on a budget refurb. project.

Hi

A decent specification 6sqm thermal system would likely provide around the same energy gain as somewhere around 18-20sqm of pv ... we get the majority of our annual water heating from a similar sized system and importantly, this is done without any potential timing risk of utilising high-value imported energy.

Regarding space heating, you'll not have anywhere near enough collector area with 6sqm, but you'll also probably not need a heatdump either if the system is properly designed/installed and you have reasonable hot water usage.

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

rogerblack wrote: »

Are there other goals than carbon reduction for FITs - certainly - but it's one of the primary drivers, hence it's reasonable to question the routine installation of devices which will reduce CO2 saving per unit of FIT paid.

My first thoughts (a while back) were similar to yours. And I could use the argument that 'only' 50% of gen is paid for as export, despite average export apparently being more, and that such devices will only be of use to a minority of households - but those arguments fall under two wrongs don't make a right.

However, I don't think the primary goal of FITs is CO2 reduction or maximum generation, I feel it is to enable / launch a technology that can later grow into those twin roles. And at this stage PV is still finding its feet, with prices and subsidies (and export rates) remaining volatile. And new ideas and partner technologies evolving fast.

So I feel such devices can help to speed up the viability of PV in a post subsidy world, by allowing potential households to maximise returns. This may appear idealistic, but going forward, it'll be better to have PV with water heating, than no PV at all, if the marginal gains of that heating tip the balance. So the products get rolled out and tried and tested, and who knows what'll be left standing in 5 years or so.

Mart.

Energetic_2

rogerblack wrote: »

The FIT is paid with the aim of reducing CO2 emissions.
If the houseowner feeds 1kWh into the grid, they effectively remove the need to burn 3kWh or so of gas at the power station (and burn 1kWh of gas locally)

If they use that power locally, to replace gas, they are reducing their gas usage, true, but only by 1kWh.

The price of carbon reduction doubles for self-consumed units, if these substitute for gas.

Are there other goals than carbon reduction for FITs - certainly - but it's one of the primary drivers, hence it's reasonable to question the routine installation of devices which will reduce CO2 saving per unit of FIT paid.

Ok, thanks for the clarification, i see where you're coming but it's more complex than just CO2/£. The fit is as much about awareness and kickstarting an industry as carbon, all those highly visible things on peoples roofs that weren't there 3 years ago get peoples attention. The aim is to get to grid parity ASAP, the industry doesn't want subsidies, the administration of the subsidies has made life very stressful for most of us over the last year. However much of mess it looked DECC have very effectively slashed the cost of PV in this country.

That said, I am not here to debate the effectiveness of the fit scheme, i am not a policy maker. I work within the framework provided by Ofgem.

I am someone who can make a difference to peoples energy bills, bring in an income attached to their property or make a property grid autonomous. I can also advise on the technical aspects of the systems. That is what i will limit my comments too.