- Reaction score
- 12
Discuss Just look at the overhang! in the Solar PV Forum | Solar Panels Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net
As near as makes no difference they are facts mate.
They are about 30% efficient at extracting energy from it's source, there are other types of renewable energy that are 90% efficient at extracting that energy. That is a fact my friend, or at least it is until tecnological advances mean that solar power is more efficient than it is currently. So given that a solar panel can extract 30% of the suns energy, a figure that is calculated when the panel is exposed to as much sunlight as it can gather, for example facing up in Ethiopia, in the UK however they perform at roughly 80% of what they would on the equator. Again, I say that these are facts, not made up gumpf.
They are about 30% efficient at extracting energy from it's source, there are other types of renewable energy that are 90% efficient at extracting that energy. That is a fact my friend, or at least it is until tecnological advances mean that solar power is more efficient than it is currently. So given that a solar panel can extract 30% of the suns energy, a figure that is calculated when the panel is exposed to as much sunlight as it can gather, for example facing up in Ethiopia, in the UK however they perform at roughly 80% of what they would on the equator. Again, I say that these are facts, not made up gumpf.
There's a house down the road from me that has the entire north facing side of the roof covered, to add insult to injury it's shaded from the entire east side by a 50ft oak tree!
This house is the very reason I decided early on that I wouldn't be involving myself in the whole solar scam. A complete waste of money, time and effort to install a solar panel in the UK. A joke to then install them badly
Pardon?? Can you elaborate on these "facts" please, for the benefit of those who don't have any understanding of what you are talking about?
It is clear to all of us who read and post regularly that you are not informed enough to comment accurately. I suggest you get some knowledge on the subject and come back to us with and informed opinion. I'm pretty sure it will be different to the opinion you have now.
Seriously fella, time to stop digging :rofl:
My 3.7kW is not ideally sited (split over a south and south-west roof at 50 degrees), shaded at times, will generate around 3000kWh per annum and will pay for itself in around 7 years. That's a fact, not information copied and pasted from the internet.
Installed between two houses that's whyFact from where? I have a friend with a 3kW system (all south east facing) and his produces roughly a third of that?! Explain that?
Installed between two houses that's why
Nope, completely unshaded. Decent panels, correct inverter for the system, good installation, reputable installer.
Fact from where? I have a friend with a 3kW system (all south east facing) and his produces roughly a third of that?! Explain that?
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 like every expert idiot...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.
This post is nothing to do with proving whether or not pv is worth fitting
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
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.
I'm 100% accurate
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.
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.Financial outlay and payback time with previous FIT's.
Financial outlay and payback time with present day and future FIT's.
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.Efficiency in relation to their carbon footprint.
98% of solar PV systems in a 2 year study by sheffield university researchers are performing at or above their predictions. (link)Actual performance compared to advertised performance.
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.Aesthetics.
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.Viability and cost effectiveness when compared to other renewables ie 'bang for your buck'.
There's a difference between personal and professional opinion.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.
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)
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.
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
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%?
I meant in the sense that he is taking five and should be giving back 4, but is only actually giving back 2.5.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.
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
the point is that efficiency is largely irrelevant when the fuel source is free, abundant and virtually ever lasting.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!
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.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
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.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???
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
Reply to Just look at the overhang! in the Solar PV Forum | Solar Panels Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net