Solar Subsidy to be cut by 90% in January

MFW_ASAP

Cardew wrote: »

What I cannot understand is why sensible posters on other threads, like yourself, feel you have to defend an indefensible FIT scheme simply because you have installed solar.

"Customers love it, since they’re effectively getting this huge investment mostly given to them by the government. People are getting a generous free handout, so they think that’s fantastic, and people will very rarely stop and question whether this actually makes sense as a worthwhile thing for the good of the country. Nobody truly wants to be skeptical when they’re getting a free handout, but as always, skepticism is really important." Luke Weston.

Cardew

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I'm not sure why we're talking about nuclear power on a thread about solar PV feed it tariffs,

Standard diversionary tactics.


Nuclear, coal, India, China, Australia, USA, global warming, climate deniers, etc, all introduced into the thread in an attempt to move the discussion from a stupid scheme to pay compensation for solar generation in UK.

MFW_ASAP

Talking about Australia, here's an interesting article covering Aussie FITs that is relevent to solar in general, discussing the massive expense required for solar to get comparable energy generation from a single power station (I referenced a quote from the same guy in my previos post, here is more of the article)

"According to the BOM’s empirical satellite date, in southeastern Australia, including Melbourne, Adelaide, Sydney and everything in between, the average daily solar exposure is 15 megajoules per square meter per day 4. In other words, the total amount of solar energy received on the Earth’s surface, here, is about 15 megajoules per square meter, on average, in one day.
As most of you probably know, power is the rate of change of ene
rgy with respect to time; that is, the rate at which energy flows, measured in joules per second, or watts. Since we receive 15 MJ per square meter per day in the form of solar radiation, that’s an average power density of 174 watts per square meter, on average over the whole day. During the daytime it’s approximately twice that, approximately 350 W of power per square meter, but you get nothing at night." cont....

[Deleted User]

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Quite the contrary actually, as several PV'ers on MSE (and elsewhere) have reported being asked to supply a photo of their TGM when reporting higher than average quarterly figures. I myself was asked manually about a rather low winter figure for my WNW system.

The companies can simply estimate generation figures and query any that fall outside of a reasonable margin, especially as PV generation seems to be boringly predictable. Also remember that by trying to falsify a single claim, you could place at risk the other 79 to 99 claims.

Mart.

Earlier this year my TGM was inspected twice within weeks!?

All fine though

Cardew

jeepjunkie wrote: »

Earlier this year my TGM was inspected twice within weeks!?

All fine though

That's good. It seems like the authorities took heed of George Monbiot's warning;)

zeupater

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Talking about Australia, here's an interesting article covering Aussie FITs that is relevent to solar in general, discussing the massive expense required for solar to get comparable energy generation from a single power station (I referenced a quote from the same guy in my previos post, here is more of the article)

"According to the BOM’s empirical satellite date, in southeastern Australia, including Melbourne, Adelaide, Sydney and everything in between, the average daily solar exposure is 15 megajoules per square meter per day 4. In other words, the total amount of solar energy received on the Earth’s surface, here, is about 15 megajoules per square meter, on average, in one day.
As most of you probably know, power is the rate of change of ene
rgy with respect to time; that is, the rate at which energy flows, measured in joules per second, or watts. Since we receive 15 MJ per square meter per day in the form of solar radiation, that’s an average power density of 174 watts per square meter, on average over the whole day. During the daytime it’s approximately twice that, approximately 350 W of power per square meter, but you get nothing at night." cont....

Hi

Interesting article ?? ... looks like a lift of something (2009 skeptics article?) from someone who has no understanding of what they're on about and absolutely no grasp of science or energy usage patterns ...

Now, we could either look at this using insolation and conversion efficiencies, but as we're talking about solar photovoltaic panels let's base a simple calculation on them ....

A 1kWp system in southeastern Australia averages somewhere around 3.6kWh/day ( http://pvoutput.org/region.jsp ), will likely consist of 4x250Wp panels and will cover around 6.6sqm (1652x994x4:15.2%efficient) ... straightforward calculation then, 3.6/6.6 gives 545Wh/sqm/day .... that's an average generation 'power density' (whatever that means) of 22W (24Hr) or around 44W (daylight) .... convert that to 100% efficiency and you get a direct comparison to the above, so 145W (22/0.152) compared to the 174W in the article, the difference probably being due to orientation etc ....

Okay, what does that term 'power density' mean in useful terms ? .... absolutely nothing as it doesn't consider load, season, usage patterns, peak generation or anything else. To make any sense the author should really have provided any calculations based on 'energy' not 'power' but I suspect that this was a deliberate consideration ... so, 545Wh per square metre per day ... sounds more reasonable, but what about when it's needed - during the day when high load appliances are required, so peak power density ... well that's simple at it's a 1kWp system covering 6.6sqm, so 152W at 15.2% efficiency, allow for the effect of heat (say panel high temperature 60C+, so ~17.5%) and each square meter is still delivering ~125W ...

On the basis used in the article, over 24Hrs I wouldn't be able to run any high load device with our 4kWp system in a comparatively dull, 'high latitude' , part of the world, however, the washing machine has just finished it's cycle and I'm about to put the kettle on for a cuppa, neither of which will require fossil-fuel generation ... I think that just about describes the relevance of the article in a nutshell ....

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Interesting article ??

Actually I thought it was interesting, as it's always good to look back at these old articles if only to see how fast things changed, and how quickly the authors get caught out.

I though it funny that they were talking about Aus$8,000/kWp and theorising about domestic installs of 1.3kWp in the future.

BTW, the figures given for generation seem a tad low, and a little less than I was told recently by some Aussie PV'ers - do you think it's because the calculations are based on flat panels/figures?

Mart.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Actually I thought it was interesting, as it's always good to look back at these old articles if only to see how fast things changed, and how quickly the authors get caught out.

I though it funny that they were talking about Aus$8,000/kWp and theorising about domestic installs of 1.3kWp in the future.

BTW, the figures given for generation seem a tad low, and a little less than I was told recently by some Aussie PV'ers - do you think it's because the calculations are based on flat panels/figures?

Mart.

Hi

Figures I used are based on around 10,000 installations in the very part of Australia which the article references and is based on ~50GWh of generation ... Of course, there are sunnier parts of Australia and there are systems with ideal orientation for their locations, but averages are a good place to start ....

HTH
Z

EricMears

jeepjunkie wrote: »

Earlier this year my TGM was inspected twice within weeks!?

Cardew wrote: »

That's good. It seems like the authorities took heed of George Monbiot's warning)

Apparently all FIT paying companies are obliged to come and read your meter at least once every two years. Highly likely that Jeepjunkie's company only came the second time because they managed to mis-file the first report

marcus_h

Hey everyone. I am just trying to confirm - are the subsidies going to be cut, or was this just a predication?