Solar

[Dangeroushamster]

I've just had a 4kw system fitted with solar edge technology for £6200 with an iboost system (heats hot water using only free power)

It's only been in for a month and my best day so far produced 30kwh. This should increase as we get nearer to summer. That works out at £4.50 generation tarrif plus whatever we made exporting and electricity savings for that day

Working out what we have used over the month we have had them fitted our electricity usage (that we imported from the grid) is down 50% on the previous month. We haven't used our gas boiler to heat the hot water over the last month (it's been physically switched off for a week, before that I couldnt say for definate if the system topped up the heat generated by solar)

It works out less than 7 years to pay our system back excluding savings from the hot water. It's early days, and will have a better idea in 11 months, but am very impressed so far

 

[THRIPSTER]

I know of five - and, in common with the last poster, three of which use SolarEdge technology. Heating of HW during the day using the generated power to feed the electric immersion heater minimises boiler demand. They are pleased with the returns. They have studied, taken the risk and invested. Payback times are estimated to be much shorter than the twelve years you are quoting.

You'll hear a lot of clap trap about about unfairness - but it is childishly thought out. We are all going to have to pay more, one way or another, for our energy use - either to fund new nuclear, green or research or otherwise. Almost every other developed/developing nation is investing in alternative forms of energy creation - why do you suppose that may be? The marvel is that we have fallen so far behind.

So Wabbit, you go for it - I know it is a risk, but even if the FITs are withdrawn in the future, you will have the helped to reduce the requirement for another power station (possibly fossil), reduced your costs and reduced your dependency upon foreign owned generating companies. And you will have the excitement of watching the graphs of generated power and thinking 'I invested in that'.

The 'argument' that it is unfair to the poor/disadvantaged could be applied to many forms of tax - but you will not hear much about that - presumably because the complainers use some of the services that we all pay tax for.

Think of what happened with William Caxton. Change is uncomfortable - but we need to change - and we need to do it quickly. Do not let the negative ions cancel your charge!

Regards

 

[bernardgreen]

You'll hear a lot of clap trap about about unfairness

One person has £8,000 of spare cash so installs solar panels and claims FIT from his supplier.
His next door neighbour is struggling to make ends meet and has to pay more for his electricity so the supplier can give FIT money to the rich neighbour.

It would be fair if the price per unit sold to the network by private generation was the same as the price per unit the supplier pays to the power generation companies.

I am quietly pleased to know that a chap who has been loudly bragging about his solar install and the income it makes is now having trouble selling his house. The the solar panels are putting people off buying it. Seems some canny buyers recognise that the degradation in panel output with age is not always included in calculating pay back periods.

 

[Dangeroushamster]

You'll hear a lot of clap trap about about unfairness

One person has £8,000 of spare cash so installs solar panels and claims FIT from his supplier.
His next door neighbour is struggling to make ends meet and has to pay more for his electricity so the supplier can give FIT money to the rich neighbour.

It would be fair if the price per unit sold to the network by private generation was the same as the price per unit the supplier pays to the power generation companies.

I am quietly pleased to know that a chap who has been loudly bragging about his solar install and the income it makes is now having trouble selling his house. The the solar panels are putting people off buying it. Seems some canny buyers recognise that the degradation in panel output with age is not always included in calculating pay back periods.

All the panels I looked at had the output guaranteed for 25 years with a minimum of 80% of original output guaranteed. Degradation was included in the forecast along with the fact payments are index linked

If there were two houses in the same street for sale and one of them had solar panels and offered me an income/savings of £800 a year I'd go for that house every day of the week. I see it as a real selling point

 

[THRIPSTER]

Looks like the rest of this thread has been tonsured. I have no commercial interest in Solar PV and do not install these. I have, however, looked into putting these on my own roof and looked into becoming an installer.

You could argue that we pay an enormous amount for hospital treatment of those who are obese, or non drivers could argue that they pay indirectly for road upkeep, or you could argue that you are taxed highly for treatment of smokers etc etc. Life us unfair but we have a collective responsibility to research and move on/upwards. That is what is happening whether we like it or not. 'You can either get busy dying or get busy living'.

Regards

 

[THRIPSTER]

Bernard,

There is no problem in selling a house where the house owner retains title to the FIT's - it only becomes a problem when solar panels are installed with the right to the FITs signed over to the installer. For that reason, do not sign up for that option.

'Seems like.....' is not the same as 'I have completed recent research and this shows that buyers are put off due to degradation of output over time'. I am sorry but if you look at the latest statistics, you'll probably find you are incorrect - I take no pleasure in saying it.

That you are quietly pleased about a neighbour's misfortune is not something that you probably wish to brag about on an open forum - or is it? For such a well respected member, I am surprised.

Regards

 

[bernardgreen]

I have had verified data on the life of smaller solar panels used to power equipment on remote hilltop sites where mains power is not available. Degradation is seen as a problem and present design rules set by one organisation are that installed capacity ( watts ) is 1.5 times maximum required in order to provide a ( from memory ) 6 year life before output falls below required amount. That is above the factor that is allow for reduced output due to dirt build up between maintainance and cleaning visits.

And these are the higher specification panels considered as more resilient than domestic panels.

 

[THRIPSTER]

Thank you Bernard - that is interesting. Could you please forward the manufacturer's name and type number for these panels - I'd be very interested to see the data. Would also like to understand the power output of the installation and type of inverter ect so that we can make a proper comparison.


Regards

 

[Dangeroushamster]

I have had verified data on the life of smaller solar panels used to power equipment on remote hilltop sites where mains power is not available. Degradation is seen as a problem and present design rules set by one organisation are that installed capacity ( watts ) is 1.5 times maximum required in order to provide a ( from memory ) 6 year life before output falls below required amount. That is above the factor that is allow for reduced output due to dirt build up between maintainance and cleaning visits.

And these are the higher specification panels considered as more resilient than domestic panels.

I think a maximum of 20% degredation after 25 years is acceptable. That's 20% of each panel and not the total power of the system. I don't see the benefit of increasing capacity to 150% allow for degredation when it's each panel and not the system degredation

 

[bernardgreen]

Could you please forward the manufacturer's name and type number for these panels

I no longer have the data and even if I did they would have had "in house" part numbers and not the manufacturer and manufacturer's part numbers.

Largest install I can recall was around 1000 watts in diffuse sunlight.

 

[bernardgreen]

That's 20% of each panel and not the total power of the system.

If the degradation was limited to only one panel out of several then the effect on the system from that one panel would be much less than 20% But in reality all panels will degrade so over all system degradation percentage will be similar to the percentage degradation of individual panels.

Also if one panel in connected series with others suffers severe degradation and as a result becomes high impedance then those panels in series with it will no longer be able to contribute to the system.

 

[THRIPSTER]

That is a great shame Bernard, as we are now left in the position of having to rely on data from modern products which show far better characteristics than you describe.


Regards

 

[Ric2013]

I would be very interested in any data on premature failure of solar modules (panels).

The Centre for Alternative Technology has some very old (20 years ish) panels branded by BP of all people. They seem to have aged in accordance with the notes I took at a C.A.T. Renewable Energy Systems course which state that 'PV panels tend to degrade by 0.5% to 1% per year, so 80% after 20 years is fairly pessimistic.'.

That said, according to the same lecturer, some companies DO over-engineer their panels so as to comply with the typical 80% output after 20 years warranty, so the system may over-perform at first.

 

[Ric2013]

Also if one panel in connected series with others suffers severe degradation and as a result becomes high impedance then those panels in series with it will no longer be able to contribute to the system

Another good reason to split the installation over more than one inverter

 

[THRIPSTER]

I thought it was becoming de rigueur to install panels with micro inverters?

Regards