Just look at the overhang!

[D Skelton]

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

I meant in the sense that he is taking five and should be giving back 4, but is only actually giving back 2.5.

 

[shanky887614]

I meant in the sense that he is taking five and should be giving back 4, but is only actually giving back 2.5.

You get the fit rate even if he uses all the energy he generates so in effect he is getting paid for 4 but putting in a lot less into the grid

 

[longboat]

D Skelton...
Please return to your flat earth where global warming doesn't exist.

I welcome sensible debate but fail to understand why someone who is obviously so ill informed, skim reads google results and obviously has no interest in solar is posting here?

Your 'facts' are wrong...period. PV panels aren't 30% efficient...they are 15-20% efficient, but ********...you look at the headline % figure to base your opinion on.
Solar does work, is financially viable and is an important but often overlooked part of our future energy supply. These stupid comments are damaging, as there are too many other lazy, armchair experts out there who start quoting this crap as fact.

I take it you don't drive a car? They are obviously equally useless due to there 30% efficiency.

I'm posting this as I feel it is important that information posted online is factual. Anybody reading this thread in the future...please ignore ******* comments and do your own proper research.

Ken

I think this is the crux of your argument.
Only look at the glossy website's that have a financial intrest in you believing their dubious claims.
Ask yourself how often you leave a potential client's house hoping they dont do "proper" research?

 

[Gavin A]

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!

the point is that efficiency is largely irrelevant when the fuel source is free, abundant and virtually ever lasting.

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

it's not an either or option, for most of our customers solar PV is the next step after they've already done all of that.

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???

1150kWh per m2 of insolation per year at our office according to PVGIS satellite data, multiplied by 26m2 array area for 4kWp of standard 250Wp panels = 29900kWh per year of solar energy available.

29,900 * 12% efficiency of conversion = 3588kWh

and the practical experience from hundreds of systems installed, and dozens actively monitored backs this up.

 

[D Skelton]

You get the fit rate even if he uses all the energy he generates so in effect he is getting paid for 4 but putting in a lot less into the grid

Exactly!!! Bingo!!! At last!!! This is the crime! Essentially, there are fellas out there (not all I must add) robbing the tax payer blind because they have fitted a 4kW system to a north facing and shaded roof. The system is producing precisely 0kWh per year but they still get the money for it! Granted this has changed recently and people are less able to cream off the system, but by god what a terrible idea! People should get paid for what they ACTUALLY produce, rather than what the installer says it will produce under standard test conditions!

 

[shanky887614]

I think this is the crux of your argument.
Only look at the glossy website's that have a financial intrest in you believing their dubious claims.
Ask yourself how often you leave a potential client's house hoping they dont do "proper" research?

? How so you get a garenty on inverter etc for 10+ years = 40kw at 50p kw is 20,000

 

[Gavin A]

I think this is the crux of your argument.
Only look at the glossy website's that have a financial intrest in you believing their dubious claims.
Ask yourself how often you leave a potential client's house hoping they dont do "proper" research?

never.

We almost always get the job if the customer has done their research in advance.

 

[Gavin A]

Exactly!!! Bingo!!! At last!!! This is the crime! Essentially, there are fellas out there (not all I must add) robbing the tax payer blind because they have fitted a 4kW system to a north facing and shaded roof. The system is producing precisely 0kWh per year but they still get the money for it! Granted this has changed recently and people are less able to cream off the system, but by god what a terrible idea! People should get paid for what they ACTUALLY produce, rather than what the installer says it will produce under standard test conditions!

eh?

they only get paid for the amount actually generated.

a north facing roof will generate in the region of 30-50% less over a year than the same system size on a south facing roof depending how steep it is, so those with north facing installs would be paid 30-50% less for their installation than for the same installation on a perfect south facing roof.

 

[Gavin A]

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.

Most of those studies were based on predicted costs for the new generation of nuclear plant. Unfortunately both the builds that have actually started in Europe are well over 100% over their original projected costs, and are taking more than double the predicted time to build, so those studies are obviously miles out on reality.

The reality of the situation is that no company could be found that was willing to build a new generation of nuclear plant in the UK without 35 years of guaranteed payments at double the current wholesale electricity prices.

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!

maybe, but it's also pretty much the only major hazardous waste source for which there is no agreed recycling or disposal route, and which will remain hazardous for hundreds or thousands of years.

 

[ExtremePV]

Exactly!!! Bingo!!! At last!!! This is the crime! Essentially, there are fellas out there (not all I must add) robbing the tax payer blind because they have fitted a 4kW system to a north facing and shaded roof. The system is producing precisely 0kWh per year but they still get the money for it! Granted this has changed recently and people are less able to cream off the system, but by god what a terrible idea! People should get paid for what they ACTUALLY produce, rather than what the installer says it will produce under standard test conditions!

AAAAAHHHHH!
Sorry...beer down...time for another rant....

This proves just how little you know about what you are talking about. I'm not being rude but PLEASE go and read how the FITs system works. Quick summary...you only get paid for what you produce..if you generate nothing..you don't get paid!
As for Nuclear being better / cheaper... don't even get me started........

Also please stop posting links to your website where you are selling your electical installation / LED lighting business.

 

[HandySparks]

Also please stop posting links to your website where you are selling your electical installation / LED lighting business.

Eh? What's this to do with the topic?

Are you also going to complain about signature links from Gavin A, whinmoor, jerriais, JulianC and Jason 121?

 

[D Skelton]

eh?

they only get paid for the amount actually generated.

a north facing roof will generate in the region of 30-50% less over a year than the same system size on a south facing roof depending how steep it is, so those with north facing installs would be paid 30-50% less for their installation than for the same installation on a perfect south facing roof.

Pre smart meters? 50% deemed export values? Rent-A-Roof?

Ringing any bells?

 

[Gavin A]

Pre smart meters? 50% deemed export values? Rent-A-Roof?

Ringing any bells?

there has never been a solar support scheme in the UK that worked the way you describe it, you've simply got that wrong.

50% deemed export still applies, but it's 50% of the actual metered generation, so if the generation is low then so are the payments. IME most houses actually lose out slightly on that deal compared to if it were metered, unless it's a small system, or they're particularly high day time energy users, or have an immersion diversion device installed.

rent a roof companies also only get paid on the metered generation.

 

[D Skelton]

Most of those studies were based on predicted costs for the new generation of nuclear plant. Unfortunately both the builds that have actually started in Europe are well over 100% over their original projected costs, and are taking more than double the predicted time to build, so those studies are obviously miles out on reality.

One of the main reasons for this is because of the epic price hikes from suppliers to the builds. They know that billions of pounds are being spent and will happily charge $200 for a small pack of screws! There isn't tight enough regulation of costs and as we well know, certain EU legislation makes it very hard to bin off a supplier once under contract. The Fins and French are being raped at the highest of levels by greedy companies and the current legislation houses no power to do anything about it! $22 billion was one of the last figures quoted for the two plants I believe, this is over triple the predicted $7 billion for the two being built in China. Let's just hope we let the Chinese build ours! lol

maybe, but it's also pretty much the only major hazardous waste source for which there is no agreed recycling or disposal route, and which will remain hazardous for hundreds or thousands of years.

Who cares if there are a few places around the planet buried miles below the ground that will always be dangerous? There are millions more places on the surface that are 100 times more dangerous than a nuclear waste disposal site! Anyway, in 150 years time when our energy production will almost exclusively be nuclear, I'm sure we'll have found a safe way to blast the waste into space

On a serious and personal note, thanks for actually taking the time to come up with a reasoned and well structured argument against my claims. I'd far rather debate with someone like you than someone who's opening line of reply is "you're an idiot" lol. We might disagree, but we can at least disagree civilly.

 

[D Skelton]

there has never been a solar support scheme in the UK that worked the way you describe it, you've simply got that wrong.

50% deemed export still applies, but it's 50% of the actual metered generation, so if the generation is low then so are the payments. IME most houses actually lose out slightly on that deal compared to if it were metered, unless it's a small system, or they're particularly high day time energy users, or have an immersion diversion device installed.

rent a roof companies also only get paid on the metered generation.

I think I'm muddling my words. Let's put it simply, a scam company installs a crappy small system on a north facing roof, it will generate bugger all (0kWp was an exageration). Lets say it generates 1000kWh per annum but the house consumes 2000kWh per annum, regardless of the fact that the solar panel isn't even covering half of the homes consumption, the company still gets paid for 50% of the 1000kWh. This is how I understand it anyway. If I am wrong, tell me exactly how this is prevented?