Solar ... In the news
Comments
-
Maybe trim the bits that don't help or happy to keep them - there's now a spreadsheet folk can use and people can always ignore anyway.
Looks like we were talking to ourselves anyway.
At least some value did come out of the discussion ;-)0 -
Martyn1981 wrote: »So to make the scheme viable for all (well, most) reasonably decent PV rooves it will be FAT in places.
Mart.
That's a very good point!
How about a subsidy that limits to 0.8 - 1 kw/h per generated kw annually?
Anyway, appreciate discussing the vagarities of the fiT scheme is probably way beyond this board.
Have enjoyed the debate though but apologies for going waay off topic.0 -
Maybe trim the bits that don't help or happy to keep them - there's now a spreadsheet folk can use and people can always ignore anyway.
Looks like we were talking to ourselves anyway.
At least some value did come out of the discussion ;-)
As it was just us, and the thread is news based, rather than discussion based, I've carried out a post cull. With this one on borrowed time too.
Mart.Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
Just wondered when you two lovebirds would realise that you can't use a set price and set orientation for your working out.
2 kWp SEbE , 2kWp SSW & 2.5kWp NWbW.....in sunny North Derbyshire17.7kWh Givenergy battery added(for the power hungry kids)0 -
I was reading this article:
Renewable Energy Land Requirements To Power US With Solar
Nothing particularly new, but always fascinating to see how much (or little) land is needed for a theoretical 100% energy from PV. That's energy, not leccy.
But I was casually reading the comments, and thinking what a polite and friendly group of number crunchers, when I read this post, about 3/4 of the way down the page:Australia is now installing residential rooftop solar for $1/watt.
Once the US gets to that level it's going to be interesting to see what role utility solar plays. With end-users providing the real estate, insurance, capital and maintenance it might make more sense for utilities to start treating end-users like wholesale providers. They'd also avoid transmission costs and have a less variable input due to the wider dispersion of panels.
I was totally blown away by that, read it a few times, before moving on, only to find others pointing out just how significant that fact is:Yes, lets not let that remark slip by unnoticed: "Australia is now installing residential rooftop solar for $1/watt." It merely signifies the end of fossil fuels, the assurance of inexpensive electricity and basically the salvation of the... ahem, 'physical' world. I saw that figure yesterday on the Australian site which averages all through the country month by month. The low average figure for a 5 kw rooftop solar installation complete, in May 2015 is...(drum roll) $1.03 watt. If that does not meet the U.S. "Sunshot" aspiration for 2020 I don't know what could.
Blimey, so a 5kWp install for $5,150, or ~£3,200. Holy cow, I didn't think Australia was that far ahead.
I don't know anything about the site, nor the posters, but I hope they are right.
Stunned (not stunning) Mart.Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
Martyn1981 wrote: »Blimey, so a 5kWp install for $5,150, or ~£3,200. Holy cow, I didn't think Australia was that far ahead.
I don't know anything about the site, nor the posters, but I hope they are right.
Stunned (not stunning) Mart.
Indeed and plug those numbers into the spreadsheet model with a 40% electricity usage and UK centric variables for elec cost and insolation guess what? It returns over 4% so in a low interest environment you absolutely don't need the tariff to make it a worthwhile investment.
Thoughts on where this goes:
We'll end up generating too much energy at peak sun times.
Battery technology and advancements will be absolutely key and research will no doubt flood into them.
Land close to energy infrastructure will become more valuable as people rush to fill it with Solar PV.
Energy prices fall.
Best news - our reliance on dirty energy reduces rapidly.0 -
HiI got all excited and have created a parametrised one:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jfM2pXZjUJRG3RFzozV4heT_wqj3r3dDRBtwBfyAEik/edit?usp=sharing
Been watching this discussion, so first observations, and they're pretty major ....
(i) - If someone is willing to tie up significant capital in a pv system, when comparing to ISA why does the spread-sheet assume that all interest is paid away and not compounded ?
Logically, if the 'investor' has 'spare' funds available to buy a system outright, then the money isn't considered as being needed in the short term and should be treated as such when comparing on a 'like with like' basis .... Isn't it also the case that a cash ISA investment would only attract an APR of 3% if tied in for a number of years (ie a fixed term investment) and that if the money was 'spare' the 'investor' wouldn't need the interest to be paid away ? ... surely this would also necessitate that the comparison reflected the compound interest ? - in which case the £5058 should be compared to £4837, not £3600 when calculating the IRR - in a nutshell, why compare cashflow if cash isn't the issue ?
(ii) - Logically, you really shouldn't directly compare an investment in capital equipment with a cash balance. The spread-sheet referenced assumes an immediate write down of the capital investment on day one, odd as it would normally be treated as an asset and depreciated by some method or other (this is what Mart was trying to convey), with this being compared to the ISA investment where the investment is written off on day one and returned as a lump sum at the end of the comparison ..... In reality, the ISA cash is available for full return at any time (maybe a penalty, but relatively minor) whilst the pv value cannot ...
(iii) - Remove the investment returns incentive by only covering costs - what happens ? .... at the end of the system life (25 years ?) a further capital investment is necessary, however, after year 20 the FiT scheme stops paying at the current rate and will in all expectations no longer exist .... on a current cost basis (because that's what the spread-sheet assumes) allowance should be made for capital investment in replacement equipment ... hopefully system prices and efficiencies should be have improved by then and we'll all be able to replace the systems from capital returns (that's those of us who are still around by then !), else we're all screwed as no-one will replace their own generation and there'll be little chance of grid-scale generation filling the gap .... is that the time that net-metering finally becomes the solution ? ....
HTH
Z"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
0 -
Hi
(i) - If someone is willing to tie up significant capital in a pv system, when comparing to ISA why does the spread-sheet assume that all interest is paid away and not compounded ?
Thanks for your comments. Useful input.
There is no compounding, cost of capital or inflation in the calcs - this is to keep things simple. The net effect would be minimal assuming a similar rate across all three.
i.e. you could also compound the returns from the FiT which will rise in line with the RPI.
(ii) - Logically, you really shouldn't directly compare an investment in capital equipment with a cash balance. The spread-sheet referenced assumes an immediate write down of the capital investment on day one, odd as it would normally be treated as an asset and depreciated by some method or other (this is what Mart was trying to convey),
That's because it's a cash flow model and not a P/L analysis. As we debated into the earlier hours both are equally valid - the cash method tends to be the most common method used for investment appraisal which is why I used it but an "accounting profit" style where you ignore the initial outlay and introduce depreciation over 25 years would be equally valid as Mart suggested.
There is absolutely no problem and certainly not a logical one with comparing the returns of an investment with that of an ISA - the two are essentially the same IF you assume tying the money up for 25 years. I appreciate with the ISA at any point you could take your money so there's an added benefit of flexibility but that isn't quantifiable so it's right that an investment in PV should reward above the cash ISA. Whether you think that's worth 0.2%, 1% or 5% is I guess personal choice.at the end of the system life (25 years ?) a further capital investment is necessary, however, after year 20 the FiT scheme stops paying at the current rate and will in all expectations no longer exist .... on a current cost basis (because that's what the spread-sheet assumes) allowance should be made for capital investment in replacement equipment ... hopefully system prices and efficiencies should be have improved by then and we'll all be able to replace the systems from capital returns (that's those of us who are still around by then !), else we're all screwed as no-one will replace their own generation and there'll be little chance of grid-scale generation filling the gap .... is that the time that net-metering finally becomes the solution ? ....
HTH
Z
No, you ignore after 25 years - the cash flows are only considering the first 25 years. After that you could just ignore the system - you DON'T need to re-invest.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards