Solar ... In the news

Martyn1981

Excellent video on the direction of PV, and some mentions of wind and EV's. Tony is now predicting 95% of road transport will be autonomous EV's by 2030!

STOP linear thinking solar guys! Now is time for exponential growth - Tony Seba & Solar Leaders

Martyn1981

Some (rather small?) in roof installs:

Housebuilders increasingly looking to in-roof solar says installer working on 400 homes


and some semi-subsidy-free demand side PV:

Scottish Water completes largest solar project to date in move away from subsidy support

silverwhistle

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Some (rather small?) in roof installs:

Rather? Rather!

ranging from 0.5kw to 1.25kw

I don't want to say 'why bother', but given the fixed and inverter costs, why not aim higher?

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

Rather? Rather!

I don't want to say 'why bother', but given the fixed and inverter costs, why not aim higher?

Glad I'm not the only one struggling with that article, does seem a bit of a shame, hope it's not just some green-washing.

Wonder what'll happen when the Tesla tiles get cheaper, will all new house buyers almost expect them to be installed?

theboylard

silverwhistle wrote: »

Rather? Rather!

I don't want to say 'why bother', but given the fixed and inverter costs, why not aim higher?

Becasue the builders can use a small pv install to offset the carbon emmisions target on new builds - if they use PV, they can reduce the amount of insualtion the house needs.
By doing "enough", it means they can nail down costs, keep the homes reasonably attractive and sell it as a "green" house to the unitiated who will believe any twaddle the marketing robot trots out.

I'd personally buy off plan and stipulate they can install a proper roof, none of this in roof malarkey!!

silverwhistle

theboylard wrote: »

I'd personally buy off plan and stipulate they can install a proper roof, none of this in roof malarkey!!

I'd insist on a full 4kw (or more) of panels plus a vehicle charge point and gawd help them if they said "That'll be an extra 20 grand, madam"!

lstar337

My two pence worth, given that I have a 1.5kW array.

I have no doubt it was installed as little more than a carbon offset trick, otherwise why so small? We have plenty of space on our roof for more panels, though probably no more than 10.

But, while there is no chance I would have turned down more, or an upgrade now, I do feel I have to defend the 'little engine that could'.

While 1.5kW seems like nothing to you big boys, it takes care of practically all of our baseload, and we export almost nothing. Some of you may have seen my recent thread, and will know that my inverter is currently dead. The lack of generation was a real eye opener. My costs have doubled since the unit went down, going from ~£4/week to over ~£8.

So while these little systems are never going to end our reliance on fossil fuel, they are helping out families like mine that struggle with their energy costs.

Hopefully my broken system will be back up soon as a man is coming to take a look today and quote for a new inverter. I miss it, and I'm not impressed by the extra fuel cost without it.

Martyn1981

lstar337 wrote: »

My two pence worth, given that I have a 1.5kW array.(

I totally agree with you, and every little helps. I've mentioned before that 2 of my panels are a canopy over my back door. Such a system could go on any property, over doors, or as a summer sun shade over windows, and as you say, would address baseload, and proportionately have the greatest impact on import. I suspect 2 300Wp panels generating 600kWh pa, would probably save 500kWh pa.

The criticism on the article, is that the rooves are almost certainly larger, and given the costs of installing PV today, and the very low costs of panels (again today) that these installs seem to be undersized, dare I say deliberately undersized to save money by the property builders, at the cost of a more economic solution long term.

Just seems a shame, but the more PV the better, so a win, just not a win win.

lstar337

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The criticism on the article, is that the rooves are almost certainly larger, and given the costs of installing PV today, and the very low costs of panels (again today) that these installs seem to be undersized, dare I say deliberately undersized to save money by the property builders, at the cost of a more economic solution long term.

That would be my assumption without any doubt.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Just seems a shame, but the more PV the better, so a win, just not a win win.

I missed opportunity for sure, but a lot property builders care little about what they are building, or what makes sense for the homeowner after they move on.

Maybe a rule change would make a lot of sense here. If an array is fitted for carbon offsetting, then it must be a minimum size, say 2kWp+.

Martyn1981

Strong rumours of a 300MW UK solar farm.

UK large-scale pipeline approaches 4GW level as new 300MW site moves closer to planning