Solar ... In the news

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Calm down Cardew. PV works, no need to get upset at every bit of good news.

Are you really going to start claiming that PV on buildings that are open during the day isn't a good idea. You need to let this go. BTW, how do you know for sure that it'll be shut for the next 90yrs?



Mart.

Strange that you of all people should tell anyone to be calm!

You have posted yet another article from yet another solar industry publication.

I appreciate it is heresy to question anything about solar. However can you explain how they can claim a 430kWp system in Manchester can provide 'almost entirely' the annual 414MWH consumption of the school?

The school typically uses 414MWh throughout the year, which is expected to be met almost entirely by the installation.

A serious request! does anyone else care to give their thoughts on the issue. Martyn is incapable of any rational thought on such matters.

Martyn1981

Interesting article on PV with focusing lenses, raising efficiency into the mid 30%'s.

They state that the panels would cost 2 to 3 times more. This would increase the cost of the install by 30% (I'd have thought 50%). But generate twice as much leccy:

Ultra-high efficiency arrays being developed for the residential PV market

Mart.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Strange that you of all people should tell anyone to be calm!

You have posted yet another article from yet another solar industry publication.

I appreciate it is heresy to question anything about solar. However can you explain how they can claim a 430kWp system in Manchester can provide 'almost entirely' the annual 414MWH consumption of the school?



A serious request! does anyone else care to give their thoughts on the issue. Martyn is incapable of any rational thought on such matters.

Hi

Well I suppose that anyone with a reasonable grasp on logic would consider that the article was referring to offsetting or something similar and that the contract was for the purchase of on-site generated energy at an index linked 6p/kWh, but then again, it's not the usage or generation which is alarming, it's more likely the grasp of maths demonstrated by the school's 'business and finance director' .... £25k x 25years = £2,168,307 ?? .... of course it does, that's if a slimy snake-oil salesman has used a basic compounded rate of approximately 9.159591% per annum from year 2 onwards ..... that's approximately of course, but only because the £25k already seems to be rounded (simple snake-oil guess: 12p = £49,680 therefore 6p = 50% = ~£25k)..... anyway, I'd even question the £25k savings on an annual 414MWh, which should only be costing around £40-£50k anyway (depending on quality of purchase/sourcing decisions), so if all of the provision was self generated (which it can't be) and valued at 6p/unit it would still cost £24,840 (this would be the absolute minimum cost) ...

Note for the finance director & principal .... it seems that you're both in the wrong jobs ... an accountant without a clue about maths, but worse than that, a principal showing signs of low attainment in English Language & a poor grasp of Mathematics. This is totally unacceptable in an educational establishment and both individuals should be forced to resit their exams and then re-apply for their jobs .... (Re: "the price of electric" - it's 'electricity' you fool, [as in 'an electric car runs on electricity']... a totally shocking basic error for a principal to make!!) ...

Worried about the standard of education, well according to the referenced article, you certainly should be at one establishment !!

Z

silverwhistle

Cardew wrote: »

I appreciate it is heresy to question anything about solar. However can you explain how they can claim a 430kWp system in Manchester can provide 'almost entirely' the annual 414MWH consumption of the school?

Because unfortunately they'll be exporting a fair bit during the summer and not always have quite enough during some winter periods?

Cardew

Originally Posted by Cardew View Post

I appreciate it is heresy to question anything about solar. However can you explain how they can claim a 430kWp system in Manchester can provide 'almost entirely' the annual 414MWH consumption of the school?

silverwhistle wrote: »

Because unfortunately they'll be exporting a fair bit during the summer and not always have quite enough during some winter periods?

Not understood!

Are you agreeing the article is just a nonsense?

Martyn1981

BNEF are predicting a glut of PV panels next year as production capacity is still rising faster than demand. They suggest 70GWp of PV may be installed this year (60GWp 2015), but production capacity could reach 160GWp.

This will lead to even cheaper PV, possibly heading for $0.30/Wp.

But we in the UK will probably be protected from such cheap prices by the ever helpful MIP (minimum import price).

No 'new China' to save the day as solar faces glut: BNEF

Mart.

silverwhistle

Cardew wrote: »

Not understood!

Yes, we appreciate that is generally the case.

I haven't done the arithmetic, I'll leave that to you or someone else. But how many kWh will each kWp produce in a year in Manchester, I can't be bothered to check?

Is this annual figure a lot more than the consumption of the school or not?
Then we have to apply seasonal differences in production, which obviously don't work in the school's favour and will result in a fair bit of export in July/August.

Does that help?

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

Then we have to apply seasonal differences in production, which obviously don't work in the school's favour and will result in a fair bit of export in July/August.

Hiya. TBH the export during holidays and weekends, is almost an irrelevance to the school, as this is a PPA. They've agreed to buy leccy from the PV generation at 6p/kWh, so during the day, this should work well.

Hopefully PPA's will regenerate (pun intended) the PV industry, Bristol Council have done a few. It allows the supply side cheaper costs, as they don't pay for land, and better income as they can sell at a reduced retail price, rather than wholesale prices.

The consumer benefits by getting leccy at a reduced rate, without the expenditure of the PV system, a bit like the US model for roof leasing.

Oh. And in this example it's a great lesson for the kids, showing them that PV (and RE) works in the UK - so they can let their parents know, who might be a bit behind the times!

Mart.

silverwhistle

TBH the export during holidays and weekends, is almost an irrelevance to the school, as this is a PPA. They've agreed to buy leccy from the PV generation at 6p/kWh, so during the day, this should work well.

Ah, thanks. To be honest I wasn't paying much attention, but was just slightly irritated by a user who I can't tell if they're deliberately obtuse or just stupid. What are the annual PVGIS figures for that location BTW? :-)

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

Ah, thanks. To be honest I wasn't paying much attention, but was just slightly irritated by a user who I can't tell if they're deliberately obtuse or just stupid. What are the annual PVGIS figures for that location BTW? :-)

Actually Manchester is a stand out 'poor' location in the UK. I noticed this some time back. It gets around 850 to 900kWh/kWp when locations further north are still in the 900+'s. Even Aberdeen is better. I won't make jokes about grey places and grey skies, but there must be a climate issue?

For that location, assuming 20d pitch (the fisheye lens doesn't help), around 375MWh.

Back to the PPA issue, I said that export in the hols is irrelevant to the school, but I suppose when they are buying more, more expensive leccy in the winter months, they might wish they were open during August instead!

Mart.