Just look at the overhang!

[MDJ]

It was, up until everyone started chirping up with "You're an idiot", "You don't have a clue what you're on about" and "Your facts are wrong", without anyone actually showing me otherwise!

I understand I may have rocked the boat a little by speaking out on the solar section about the fact that PV isn't all it's cracked up to be, but treating me with the same contempt as you would someone who has murdered a member of your family just seems odd to me! lol

It's your own fault for having a picture of Geordie spark as your avatar lol

 

[SibertSolar]

I get it, this is the Friday evening general electrician's forum "let's wind up the PV boys" thread.....lol.....nice one, very good, have 10 internetz

 

[ExtremePV]

Calling you an idiot for what you've posted on a public forum doesn't devalue any of my credibility - I'm 100% accurate and simply stating a fact that everyone here can see. My language has been quite restrained considering the crap you have been spouting.

Are you on here because your friends system doesn't work or what? If its under performing get someone to go and fix it.

I think I get this now.... your going to announce any second now your either an Architect or the new energy minister.

 

[D Skelton]

Calling you an idiot for what you've posted on a public forum doesn't devalue any of my credibility - I'm 100% accurate and simply stating a fact that everyone here can see.

Speak for yourself why don't you haha.

I'm 100% accurate

Of course you are pal

My language has been quite restrained considering the crap you have been spouting.

Crap? Well that is subject to opinion. You have stated yours, I have stated mine, can't really say much else other than mine is just as valuable as yours, or at least it was until you started being abusive, then whatever opinion you had went out the window!

Are you on here because your friends system doesn't work or what? If its under performing get someone to go and fix it.

I think I get this now.... your going to announce any second now your either an Architect or the new energy minister.

Nope, just a level headed guy who isn't taken in by whatever looney climate change policy is dreamt up as a knee jerk reaction to spurious evidence at best.

I've said all I have to say to you, welcome to my block list. No matter how much others disagree with me, not a single one decided that it would be appropriate to be abusive. That is the difference between someone who gets listened to regardless of their opinion and someone who doesn't.

Ta da

 

[ExtremePV]

Sorry if you think this is abusive then you really have lived a sheltered life.

I'm glad you've said all you have to say, and your Google link building.

My final word on this.. Solar is the 2nd largest source of new energy this year in the USA (I read largest in one report)
So if as you say solar doesn't work, why has Germany installed huge amounts and USA + Japan + China now following suit?

https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...rmany-in-Solar-in-2013-930-MW-Installed-in-Q3

Solar energy is cheaper than diesel now, which is why one of my customers is £450k a year better off...for the next 20yrs. They know it works.

If you ACTUALLY look at the evidence, and look at it with an open mind you will see it does work. Yes there is still plenty of room for improvement, but its working and viable now.

 

[Gavin A]

D Skelton... to pick up on a few points.

Solar PV is nothing like 30% efficient
No solar PV panels currently on the market get anything close to 30% efficiency, most are in the region of 15-16% efficient, with the highest being something like 21%. Take off another 10-20% losses from the inverter, cables, temperature reductions, angular reflectance etc.

So if you're going to attempt to slate solar PV on this basis you'd come across at least slightly more like you knew what you were talking about if you used figures in the region of 12-18% overall system efficiency, 30% is the stuff of PV installers wet dreams.

Solar PV is infinitely more efficient than the previous roof covering.
Tiles, slates, sheet metal etc are all utterly useless at converting sunlight to electricity, compared to them solar PV is infinitely more efficient at that process. We now have 3GWp of solar PV generation capacity in the UK, instead of the zero generation capacity we'd have had in those locations if the solar PV hadn't been installed.

This point applies to most renewables other than thermal generation (ie biomass, biogas etc)

Grid connection capacity is the main limitation for solar PV not efficiency
For most customers, and the country in general, the main limiting factor for solar PV generation is the capacity of the local grid network / transformers to handle anything like the level of generation that's actually possible from the roofs of the houses / other buildings that are connected to each transformer.

Many houses are now capable of generating 50%-100% of their annual electricity consumption level
The average consumption level for UK households is around 4,500kWh a year, the average annual generation figure for a 4kWp solar PV system is in the region of 3600kWh per year, or 4500kWh per year for a 5kWp system (the biggest standard system we install on a standard 16 amp G83 connection limit).

Granted, much of this electricity tends to get exported, but it's ludicrous to attempt to argue that this level of generation is in anyway negligible.

Solar PV costs have fallen by 50-60% in the last 3-4 years, gas generation costs have increased by 50-60% in the same time period.

Solar PV vs Nuclear
Solar PV capacity is being installed at a faster rate than nuclear, with solar PV capacity on course to be generating significantly more per year by the time the first new nuclear plant opens than that plant will, with new solar PV capacity at that time generating at a significantly lower lifetime cost per kWh than the price nuclear has been guaranteed.

Nuclear is also the only energy generation technology to have had a massive increase in the level of support being offered under this government, with the nuclear clean up costs alone now accounting for over half of DECC's entire budget, and the costs just keep rising.


There's a few pointers to get you started.

 

[Marvo]

Financial outlay and payback time with previous FIT's.
Financial outlay and payback time with present day and future FIT's.
Efficiency in relation to their carbon footprint.
Actual performance compared to advertised performance.
Aesthetics.
Viability and cost effectiveness when compared to other renewables ie 'bang for your buck'.

These are all the issues that have already cropped up but it seems to me you're all lumping too many facets of PV ownership together to have any kind of meaningful discussion especially when some of them are simply personal opinion and some may be a much larger consideration on particular installations than others.

 

[Gavin A]

Financial outlay and payback time with previous FIT's.
Financial outlay and payback time with present day and future FIT's.

financial outlay is around 50-60% lower now than with previous FITs, payback times are roughly similar for domestic, and significantly lower now for commercial installs with high daytime energy consumption than they were in 2011.

Efficiency in relation to their carbon footprint.

In the region of 3-5 years for most systems in the UK, maybe a bit longer for small systems with relatively higher per Wp embeded carbon, or those where the install team has travelled the length of the country etc.

Well installed, quality solar PV systems should have a design life of at least 40-50 years, probably longer, allowing for a replacement inverter every 20-30 years or so, and a gradual reduction in efficiency of the panels (panels installed in the 70s have been measured with only around a 10% reduction in efficiency vs their original rated output).

Actual performance compared to advertised performance.

98% of solar PV systems in a 2 year study by sheffield university researchers are performing at or above their predictions. (link)

Aesthetics.

Aesthetics are important, and there are some terrible looking installs out there which has given the industry a bit of a bad reputation, and often makes me cringe when I see some of them. We've always paid attention to this issue, and now almost exclusively install all black panels, and try to encourage roof integrated panels if possible for situations where the aesthetics are most important.

Viability and cost effectiveness when compared to other renewables ie 'bang for your buck'.

for the majority of people solar PV would beat all other renewables hands down IME with or without subsidies. In some situations this won't apply, eg if they have very good wind resources, or very poor roofs for solar, but it would hold true for most.

These are all the issues that have already cropped up but it seems to me you're all lumping too many facets of PV ownership together to have any kind of meaningful discussion especially when some of them are simply personal opinion and some may be a much larger consideration on particular installations than others.

There's a difference between personal and professional opinion.

 

[whinmoor]

The big clincher for me and most of our customers is the fact that it makes them partially "energy independent". It protects them, to some degree at least, from rising energy prices and gets them out of the clutches of the Big Six. Individuals can't own their own nuclear power stations and in most cases wind turbines and hydro options are also non-starters. But, every building in the country has a roof and a large percentage, both residential and commercial, are suitable for solar panels.

It is also educational in that people become increasingly aware of how much energy they are consuming. We fitted an energy monitoring device today for a customer and demonstrated how much it shot up when they switched on their kettle. They then "clicked" to the notion of only filling the kettle halfway when they make a cuppa.

 

[D Skelton]

D Skelton... to pick up on a few points.

Solar PV is nothing like 30% efficient
No solar PV panels currently on the market get anything close to 30% efficiency, most are in the region of 15-16% efficient, with the highest being something like 21%. Take off another 10-20% losses from the inverter, cables, temperature reductions, angular reflectance etc.

So if you're going to attempt to slate solar PV on this basis you'd come across at least slightly more like you knew what you were talking about if you used figures in the region of 12-18% overall system efficiency, 30% is the stuff of PV installers wet dreams.

I was using the figure of 'around 30%' because of a New Scientist article I was reading last week about the 'next generation' of solar panel. The fact is that in a few years it will be 40% and in many years to come potentially more. The exact value, whether 20% or 30% is not really the point, the point is that the value is low!

Solar PV is infinitely more efficient than the previous roof covering.

Tiles, slates, sheet metal etc are all utterly useless at converting sunlight to electricity, compared to them solar PV is infinitely more efficient at that process. We now have 3GWp of solar PV generation capacity in the UK, instead of the zero generation capacity we'd have had in those locations if the solar PV hadn't been installed.

This point applies to most renewables other than thermal generation (ie biomass, biogas etc)

I can't disagree with that. PV is better than nothing for sure, but for the cost??? I'd sooner spend the money on LED lighting, correct insulation and A rated windows and still have enough money left over to go for a beer, or a thousand, after fitting it all

Many houses are now capable of generating 50%-100% of their annual electricity consumption level

The average consumption level for UK households is around 4,500kWh a year, the average annual generation figure for a 4kWp solar PV system is in the region of 3600kWh per year, or 4500kWh per year for a 5kWp system (the biggest standard system we install on a standard 16 amp G83 connection limit).

Granted, much of this electricity tends to get exported, but it's ludicrous to attempt to argue that this level of generation is in anyway negligible.

From what I have seen and heard, I find these figures hard to believe, especially when the average light energy intensity in the UK on a south-facing roof is around 250 Watts per square metre (I can cite many sources for this figure). How is it possible for a 4kW system to produce 3600kWh per year???

Solar PV costs have fallen by 50-60% in the last 3-4 years, gas generation costs have increased by 50-60% in the same time period.

Yes, they have, reliance on fossil fuels is ridiculous, I agree.

Solar PV vs Nuclear

Solar PV capacity is being installed at a faster rate than nuclear, with solar PV capacity on course to be generating significantly more per year by the time the first new nuclear plant opens than that plant will, with new solar PV capacity at that time generating at a significantly lower lifetime cost per kWh than the price nuclear has been guaranteed.

Nuclear is also the only energy generation technology to have had a massive increase in the level of support being offered under this government, with the nuclear clean up costs alone now accounting for over half of DECC's entire budget, and the costs just keep rising.

According to the government’s own figures, nuclear power is the cleanest of all the methods of power generation, taking everything into account from mining uranium to decommissioning and waste disposal. It emits half the CO2 from wind power, 100 times less than gas and 200 times less than coal. In large amounts of studies that have taken place, nuclear energy is the cheapest method of generating electricity taking everything into account. The other thing that no one seems to think of is that we will never run out of uranium! And contrary to popular belief, nuclear waste is nowhere near as polluting or as dangerous as people make out. It constitutes no more than 0.1% of all the UK's hazardous waste production and with the new generation of nuclear power stations creating 90% less nuclear waste than current ones, this figure of 0.1% stands to fall even more!

 

[SPARTYKUS]

I know a farmer that got a nice range rover off the back of agreeing to bury something in a concrete bunker for....ever 20 metres down in a field. And never grow crops on it. He's happy arty:arty:

 

[legoman]

I can't disagree with that. PV is better than nothing for sure, but for the cost??? I'd sooner spend the money on LED lighting, correct insulation and A rated windows and still have enough money left over to go for a beer, or a thousand, after fitting it all



From what I have seen and heard, I find these figures hard to believe, especially when the average light energy intensity in the UK on a south-facing roof is around 250 Watts per square metre (I can cite many sources for this figure). How is it possible for a 4kW system to produce 3600kWh per year???

I have done all the things you have suggested, LED's, loft insulation and "A" rated windows.
(used my FITs payment to do them)
I also have a 4kW South west facing SP system. My usage has dropped from over 5000kWh a year (in 2011) to 2450kWh last year. Most of the savings come from my SP

This year from Jan 1st to now, I have generated 3560kWh and should be close to 3600kWh by year end.
Anyone with a 4kW, South facing system, with no shading should hit 4000kWh in a year.:shades_smile:

My system will pay for itself in less than 6 years

edit..and I'm in the N.E of the UK, not the sunny south

 

[D Skelton]

I have done all the things you have suggested, LED's, loft insulation and "A" rated windows.
(used my FITs payment to do them)
I also have a 4kW South west facing SP system. My usage has dropped from over 5000kWh a year (in 2011) to 2450kWh last year. Most of the savings come from my SP

This year from Jan 1st to now, I have generated 3560kWh and should be close to 3600kWh by year end.
Anyone with a 4kW, South facing system, with no shading should hit 4000kWh in a year.:shades_smile:

My system will pay for itself in less than 6 years

edit..and I'm in the N.E of the UK, not the sunny south

So you say you have an annual energy consumption of 5000kWh and you fitted a PV system of 4kW which should produce 4000kWh in a year? Why then has your energy consumption only halved? Shouldn't it have dropped by 80%?

 

[jerriais]

As my retinas are only converting 1.6%* of the light into electrical nerve signals I consider that to be very inefficient so I will now close them and try not to despair at what I've just read on this thread.

* I can cite many sources for that figure, probably.

 

[shanky887614]

So you say you have an annual energy consumption of 5000kWh and you fitted a PV system of 4kW which should produce 4000kWh in a year? Why then has your energy consumption only halved? Shouldn't it have dropped by 80%?

The consumption wont actually change only the bill from his energy supplier