Solar: how much you paid (£) how much you have generated (kWh) and date of install.

theboylard

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Also, PV costs are still falling, energy costs will rise, and PV efficiencies are sneaking up, perhaps 10% over the next decade... FiT

Mart.

Whilst waiting for our chinese (Wokswagen, Oakley Vale, very nice too!) I read the updates since my post earlier.
Got some very strange looks when I started giggling at the bit above - I read read it again, but in a Baz Luhrmann's Sunscreen stylee (in my head, not that loopy!).
Had to add the bit on the end to make it sort of sound right!

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Sorry, I missed mentioning this in the above post, it completely slipped my mind ....

So that references .... "the renewable heat technologies are more economic than renewable electricity generation" ... as an owner of both you won't mind me going ... :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: .... as it's completely wrong --- I love our solar thermal, but the output is only heat and can't be used for anything else, whereas pv is far more flexible in terms of use ... then there's combining pv with heat-pumps (Air/Air, ASHP or GSHP) to effectively multiply the energy impact through the provision of a total system solution ....

HTH
Z

I nearly put the same argument re PV flexibility in my comment earlier, but yours is much nicer than I'd written!!!

tunnel

tunnel wrote: »

What is the point of this thread?
Are you trying to collate some more info to continue your argument with Mart?

cepheus wrote: »

I've only had one figure which can be worked on so far, where is all the data I asked for from MSE users, and why is everyone so shy about providing them?

See my earlier post and answer the question then I may post the info you need, until I get a reasonable answer then what is the point of this thread?

zeupater

theboylard wrote: »

... I nearly put the same argument re PV flexibility in my comment earlier, but yours is much nicer than I'd written!!!

Hi

It's really the main point which is missed when comparing various renewables. Solar thermal can only displace energy used for heat provision and should therefore be valued as displacing gas at around 4p/kWh, whilst a comparison for pv should be logically be against electricity at around 3 to 4 times the price apart from the price, unless it's diverted to lower grade energy applications such as space or water heating ...

... interestingly, when looking at heat-pumps and utilising the same logic, you could easily put-forward an argument that pv energy used to run the HP is valued as Gas£/kWhxCOP so as not to overcook any electricity savings if mains gas is available, but then again, that's another story for another discussion ...

HTH
Z

pinnks

I wasn't going to waste my typing on this thread as I can't see any point to it either but the lack of any sense to it after pages of frustrated exchanges led me to waste that time after all. So what is the point?

theboylard

pinnks wrote: »

I wasn't going to waste my typing on this thread as I can't see any point to it either but the lack of any sense to it after pages of frustrated exchanges led me to waste that time after all. So what is the point?

Trust me on the Sunscreen

jimjames

cepheus wrote: »

JimJames: Thanks for this, as far as I can see you are the only person who has been able to submit clear figures which can be used in a straightforward calculation.

The theoretical rated output is irrelevant, it's the cost and actual output over time which is important, although I suggested the area is included so we get an idea of the size.

Area isn't relevant though - it's the output. Some panels are far more efficient than others.

jimjames

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Your method of asking for actual generation, means that you are using older installs, which are also more expensive, this will distort your calculations. All you really need to know is if PVGIS figures can be trusted, and therefore if my claims that a south facing system can generate 1,000kWh/kWp are true.

We are south facing and I can 100% confirm that a system will generate in excess of 1000kWh/kWp. In fact ours is around 1100 kWh/kWp over the 4 years.

I'll even share the exact numbers, nothing to hide here!

Martyn1981

jimjames wrote: »

We are south facing and I can 100% confirm that a system will generate in excess of 1000kWh/kWp. In fact ours is around 1100 kWh/kWp over the 4 years.

I'll even share the exact numbers, nothing to hide here!

Thank you Jim, much appreciated.

I've chosen 1,000kWh/kWp because I think it's at the higher end, but without going to the extreme.

In the same way I suggested £5k as a good price, since a lot of people have actually done better, even down to £4.5k.

So I'm 100% confident that a 4kWp install for £5k, generating 4,000kWh pa, is reasonable ...... upper end yes, but entirely reasonable.

Regarding the 15p/kWh figure given by cepheus. I haven't bothered to get the calculator out, or play with spreadsheets, since off the top of my head that's £6k divided by 4,000kWh for just 10 years. Not even long enough to consider degradation or replacement inverter costs.

I'll wait for a more sensible/rational figure before I start doing any analysis.

Mart.

Martyn1981

pinnks wrote: »

So what is the point?

If I can answer that, with apologies for so many posts on this thread already.

For me, I can see that renewables, efficiency gains, and conservation are all important going forward. However, no single technology or solution will work ....... "wind turbines don't work when the wind isn't blowing", "PV doesn't generate when the sun isn't shining" ..... we've all heard the negative comments.

However, as a package, with storage, and for the foreseeable future gas generation as back up, they do work. But only if we have a sensible mix.

Hence why I get annoyed when a technology is singled out and criticised, especially if the criticisms can't be backed up with a sensible or rational argument. Or any explanation whatsoever.

For this reason I've asked cepheus (quite a few times now) to explain his claim in February that wind deserves support, but PV doesn't as it isn't cost effective, despite PV matching (or beating) wind when the comment was made.

If nothing else, considering the various economics is a good mental exercise, and the progress of PV so soon is quite an eye opener - most people (including myself) didn't think PV would match on-shore wind till the end of the decade, if at all.

But once again, this is not a criticism of wind (my first love), just an acknowledgement of PV's progress (in the UK).

Mart.

pinnks

Mart

That is of course a sensible debate and an interesting one. It is just that this thread isn't doing that and the requested information would not facilitate it as far as I can see. There are simply too many missing variables for the very reasons that PV is subsidised, the subsidy is dropping and so are the prices. Comparing a system price from 2011 with one from today and trying to calculate p/kWh is like comparing apples and pears unless you have access to more info and some very clever spread sheets.

Still it would be nice if you questions were answered. I look forward to reading that, ho hum