On 24/11/2011 15:21, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 24/11/2011 14:47, Martin Brown wrote:

I am still assuming that the 1076KW relates to the size of the array. It
is the least worst explanation for a curiously non technical report on
the college's own website but see below.

Colour me cynical. I don't hold out much hope for a technical college or
university department that cannot describe accurately what they mean or
correctly use scientific and engineering notation. 1076KW seems
astonishingly precise with four significant figures too.

That is one of the factors that initially at least suggested to me that
it was the array size rather than the maximum daily output. (269W x
4000). If you start from the other end and say the maximum energy output
is 4 x array size you get the same figure from 1000 panels so there
could be some justification for their use of 1076. However I can't see a
whole number solution that fits 700 to 800 panels so something still
doesn't add up.

Why does one always think of something else to say as soon as send is
pressed? ;-)

1076/4 is of course 269 so why would they consider just breaching the
250 limit and reducing their FIT payment from 19.5p to 8.5p for such a
small amount extra? Something definitely still doesn't add up.

Perhaps it really isn't connected to the grid or there is some other
limitation I have overlooked which means that they will not get more
than 8.5p.

--
Roger Chapman