Anybody out there fitted/had fitted these to their roof? I was
thinking about going for it and I went to an installer's "showroom".
There was a massive frame attached to the roof structure with V. large
CSA aluminium brackets.
There were about twenty of them. There were lead sleeves round them
for weathering.
All told made a hell of a mess of the roof. It sruck me that it would
cost as much to remove them as to put them on if the worst came to the
worst. Well I exaggerate a bit. But not much.

Are there any alternative methods of fixing?

"harry" wrote in message
...
Anybody out there fitted/had fitted these to their roof? I was
thinking about going for it and I went to an installer's "showroom".
There was a massive frame attached to the roof structure with V. large
CSA aluminium brackets.
There were about twenty of them. There were lead sleeves round them
for weathering.
All told made a hell of a mess of the roof. It sruck me that it would
cost as much to remove them as to put them on if the worst came to the
worst. Well I exaggerate a bit. But not much.

Are there any alternative methods of fixing?


Surely it won't give you a pay-back.

On Dec 11, 5:58*pm, "John" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

Anybody out there fitted/had fitted these to their roof? *I was
thinking about going for it and I went to an installer's *"showroom".
There was a massive frame attached to the roof structure with V. large
CSA aluminium brackets.
There were about twenty of them. *There were lead sleeves round them
for weathering.
All told made a hell of a mess of the roof. *It sruck me that it would
cost as much to remove them as to put them on if the worst came to the
worst. Well I exaggerate a bit. But not much.

Are there any alternative methods of fixing?

Surely it won't give you a pay-back.

8% payback thanks to subsidised prices for electrciity generated.

In article
,
harry wrote:
Surely it won't give you a pay-back.

8% payback thanks to subsidised prices for electrciity generated.

I'd get the estimated output in writing with a money back warranty if this
proves wildly out. As it invariably will.

--
*Work is for people who don't know how to fish.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 12/12/10 09:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
wrote:
Surely it won't give you a pay-back.

8% payback thanks to subsidised prices for electrciity generated.

I'd get the estimated output in writing with a money back warranty if this
proves wildly out. As it invariably will.

I dont think you get government payback if you fit them yourself.

I think they can fit them by sliding thin flat fixings up between the
slates and attaching them to the rafters higher up inside the roof.

[g]

harry wrote:
Anybody out there fitted/had fitted these to their roof? I was
thinking about going for it and I went to an installer's "showroom".
There was a massive frame attached to the roof structure with V. large
CSA aluminium brackets.
There were about twenty of them. There were lead sleeves round them
for weathering.
All told made a hell of a mess of the roof. It sruck me that it would
cost as much to remove them as to put them on if the worst came to the
worst. Well I exaggerate a bit. But not much.

Are there any alternative methods of fixing?
a word of warning. very definite moves are afoot at the DofEand CC to
essentially remove as much of the FIT from PV as they can. They already
know that essentially the things are totally useless and a license to
print money.

So be careful to check whether or not the game is worth the candle any more.

harry wrote:
On Dec 11, 5:58 pm, "John" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

Anybody out there fitted/had fitted these to their roof? I was
thinking about going for it and I went to an installer's "showroom".
There was a massive frame attached to the roof structure with V. large
CSA aluminium brackets.
There were about twenty of them. There were lead sleeves round them
for weathering.
All told made a hell of a mess of the roof. It sruck me that it would
cost as much to remove them as to put them on if the worst came to the
worst. Well I exaggerate a bit. But not much.
Are there any alternative methods of fixing?
Surely it won't give you a pay-back.

8% payback thanks to subsidised prices for electrciity generated.
shortly to be amended..google U-turn energy - new energy bill in the
offing.

Smart meters are in though. But on investigation,. appear to be almost
completely pointless. They seem to be merely a meter with a remote
display of how much you are using.

Plus automatic reading ability and the ability to cut you off remotely
at a whim.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
Surely it won't give you a pay-back.

8% payback thanks to subsidised prices for electrciity generated.

I'd get the estimated output in writing with a money back warranty if this
proves wildly out. As it invariably will.

There is no doubt they were wildly profitable.

But someone close to the dofE told me the battle is on to remove as much
of the subsidy as is politically acceptable.

Another rumour appeared in Private Eye..that a strong lobby group from
the nuclear and other alternative energies not covered by existing ROC
legislation are pushing with some possibility of success to get ROCs
replaced by a straight tax on carbon fuels. This would have the effect
of removing a large part of the subsidy from wind and PV, and making
fossil electricity a bit more expensive.

The main reason to do this, is to subsidise nuclear and other things
like carbon captured coal , without being seen to subsidise nuclear.

If this did go through in some form..and its only a private eye rumour
plus some stuff I learnt talking to a government advisor, the together
with a formal policy in the current Energy bill at is set to draw a line
under decommissioning nuclear, so as to make the ultimate costs clear to
any investors in it, it could finally spell the first move towards this
insane rush to buld totally inappropriate 'renewables' everywhere to
cash in on a policy that costs a fortune and achieves next to nothing in
fossil fuel reduction terms.

But don't hold your breath. Renewables are very lucrative as well as
useless, and a lot of people like our very own 'dynamo dave' are hanging
on the public tit sucking away like mad and will throw their toys out of
the pram before sanity is restored.

Is also deeply awkward for the Liberals (what isn't) who now in
government, have been presented with the fact that pretty much their
whole energy policy, so beloved of the Greens and the more stupid and
naive electorate, would inevitably lead to a complete collapse of the
country due to total energy shortage, if it were to be implemented.

Watch out for a completely schizophrenic Huhne, prating on about
renewables in public, whilst hastily implementing and a pro coal and
nuclear policy behind the scenes.


at least Cable bless him, has had a little moral courage to come out and
say 'election promises of a minority coalition party don't count for
much in the reality of a complete lack of money, and a partnership with
a party that has at least some clue about managing finances'

Those interested in these issues are in, I suspect, for an entertaining
year watching positions rapidly shift and be rationalised away..

On Dec 12, 11:19*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
Anybody out there fitted/had fitted these to their roof? *I was
thinking about going for it and I went to an installer's *"showroom".
There was a massive frame attached to the roof structure with V. large
CSA aluminium brackets.
There were about twenty of them. *There were lead sleeves round them
for weathering.
All told made a hell of a mess of the roof. *It sruck me that it would
cost as much to remove them as to put them on if the worst came to the
worst. Well I exaggerate a bit. But not much.

Are there any alternative methods of fixing?

a word of warning. very definite moves are afoot at the DofEand CC to
essentially remove as much of the FIT from PV as they can. They already
know that essentially the things are totally useless and a license to
print money.

So be careful to check whether or not the game is worth the candle any more.

Printing money is OK if I'm the beneficiary.
The payments are inflation linked and for the next 25 years.
It's apparently so the gov. can meet it's EU. promised green energy
targets.
They haven't any money so they're trying to use ours.

You even get paid for electricity you use yourself. Plus more on top
for exported power. Plus you have the saving of not buying some of
your power.

On Dec 12, 1:09*pm, OG wrote:
On 12/12/2010 09:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
,
* * *wrote:
Surely it won't give you a pay-back.

8% payback thanks to subsidised prices for electrciity generated.

I'd get the estimated output in writing with a money back warranty if this
proves wildly out. As it invariably will.

According to my brother, who seriously looked into it:

The special Feed In Tariff for PV panels is based on nominal figures,
based on the size, type and alignment of the panels. As such, the amount
you can expect from your FIT payments should be known from the output -
and the idea that you could charge 12V batteries from economy 7 and feed
it back during the day is a non-starter. They won't pay you any more
than the agreed from the outset.

In the end, he wasn't able to take it up, because he couldn't get listed
building consent for the roof works needed to allow the panels to be
optimally aligned to maximise output.

He's got a CHP boiler instead and now gets a 3p/unit FIT for any excess
electricity generated when heating his home.

There are various payment bands based on the size of your array.
Obviously you need to size your array accordingly.

The CHP thing is interesting. I ran an industrial CHP for a while. Has
to be run to the heat output to be effective. Is it AC or DC with
inverter?
We were AC which led to various synschronisation and control problems.
I can see with today's technology things would be a whole lot simpler.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

There is no doubt they were wildly profitable.

But someone close to the dofE told me the battle is on to remove as much
of the subsidy as is politically acceptable.

For the future, but not to backtrack on agreements already in
place.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

harry wrote:
On Dec 12, 11:19 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
Anybody out there fitted/had fitted these to their roof? I was
thinking about going for it and I went to an installer's "showroom".
There was a massive frame attached to the roof structure with V. large
CSA aluminium brackets.
There were about twenty of them. There were lead sleeves round them
for weathering.
All told made a hell of a mess of the roof. It sruck me that it would
cost as much to remove them as to put them on if the worst came to the
worst. Well I exaggerate a bit. But not much.
Are there any alternative methods of fixing?
a word of warning. very definite moves are afoot at the DofEand CC to
essentially remove as much of the FIT from PV as they can. They already
know that essentially the things are totally useless and a license to
print money.

So be careful to check whether or not the game is worth the candle any more.

Printing money is OK if I'm the beneficiary.
The payments are inflation linked and for the next 25 years.
It's apparently so the gov. can meet it's EU. promised green energy
targets.

However, there is more than one way to skin that cat.
Teh originals thought to translate carbon reducton (Kyoto) into policy
was to force people into renewables by hammering them if they didnt use
renewables, but that cat is coming out of the bag and the are realising
that renewables have almost no effect on overall carbon levels and are
raising consumer prices.


They haven't any money so they're trying to use ours.


Exactly. And OFGEN has allegedly made the point that rising electricity
prices have more to do with green politics than rising fuel pries.


You even get paid for electricity you use yourself. Plus more on top
for exported power. Plus you have the saving of not buying some of
your power.
You do right now. You should check the small print. Like I said, the
government is aware of anti-social selfish parasites like you exploiting
well intentioned policies that have utterly failed to do more than
raisee everyone else's electricity bills but yours. It will not last. It
may last longer than the panels will, of course.

On Dec 12, 3:08*pm, Chris J Dixon wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
There is no doubt they were wildly profitable.

But someone close to the dofE told me the battle is on to remove as much
of the subsidy as is politically acceptable.

For the future, but not to backtrack on agreements already in
place.

Chris

Yep. That's correct. & they won'y let you DIY either.

Chris J Dixon wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

There is no doubt they were wildly profitable.

But someone close to the dofE told me the battle is on to remove as much
of the subsidy as is politically acceptable.

For the future, but not to backtrack on agreements already in
place.


Maybe at THIS stage, that is correct.

However, the ability of governments to do what they want is legendary.


And stone throwing vandals to smash things they perceived as costing
THEM money as well.

People in glass houses..with solar panels on their rooves...
The tide is turning against renewables, thank god.

The main problem is that the politicians will look silly saying so, and
the public is still in a state of GreenBliss, believing all the crap the
renewable lobby pushes out.


Chris

On 12/12/2010 14:33, harry wrote:

Printing money is OK if I'm the beneficiary.
The payments are inflation linked and for the next 25 years.
It's apparently so the gov. can meet it's EU. promised green energy
targets.
They haven't any money so they're trying to use ours.

You even get paid for electricity you use yourself. Plus more on top
for exported power. Plus you have the saving of not buying some of
your power.


If you put it in the bank, you'd get interest. Says here in the paper
4.5% on a 5-year fixed rate bond. So your 8% payback is only 3.5% above
what you'd get on a bond _where you get your money back at the end of
the period_. So that 3.5% has to finance the capital only. It'll pay
off the capital in (1/3.5%) = about 28 years.

I'll pass thanks. You've only a 25 year guarantee on the scheme...

Andy

On Dec 12, 5:20*pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 12/12/2010 14:33, harry wrote:



Printing money is OK if I'm the beneficiary.
The payments are inflation linked and for the next 25 years.
It's apparently so the gov. can meet it's EU. promised green energy
targets.
They haven't any money so they're trying to use ours.

You even get paid for electricity you use yourself. *Plus more on top
for exported power. Plus you have the saving of not buying some of
your power.

If you put it in the bank, you'd get interest. *Says here in the paper
4.5% on a 5-year fixed rate bond. *So your 8% payback is only 3.5% above
what you'd get on a bond _where you get your money back at the end of
the period_. *So that 3.5% has to finance the capital only. *It'll pay
off the capital in (1/3.5%) = about 28 years.

I'll pass thanks. *You've only a 25 year guarantee on the scheme...

Andy

So how long does a motor car last? Also the price of electricity will
rise above inflation

harry wrote:
On Dec 12, 5:20 pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 12/12/2010 14:33, harry wrote:



Printing money is OK if I'm the beneficiary.
The payments are inflation linked and for the next 25 years.
It's apparently so the gov. can meet it's EU. promised green energy
targets.
They haven't any money so they're trying to use ours.
You even get paid for electricity you use yourself. Plus more on top
for exported power. Plus you have the saving of not buying some of
your power.
If you put it in the bank, you'd get interest. Says here in the paper
4.5% on a 5-year fixed rate bond. So your 8% payback is only 3.5% above
what you'd get on a bond _where you get your money back at the end of
the period_. So that 3.5% has to finance the capital only. It'll pay
off the capital in (1/3.5%) = about 28 years.

I'll pass thanks. You've only a 25 year guarantee on the scheme...

Andy

So how long does a motor car last? Also the price of electricity will
rise above inflation

It doubled in Denmark. No perceptible change in fossil fuel usage in
power generation as a result.

george [dicegeorge] wrote:
On 12/12/10 09:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
wrote:
Surely it won't give you a pay-back.

8% payback thanks to subsidised prices for electrciity generated.

I'd get the estimated output in writing with a money back warranty if this
proves wildly out. As it invariably will.

I dont think you get government payback if you fit them yourself.

This is deeply annoying.

I can - with the aid of ebay - if I could get just net-metering, NOT
FIT, construct solar panels that would pay back in 3-5 years.

(with FIT, it'd be 8 monthos or so, which is barking mad)

Doing it less hackily - not assembling panels myself - would still
be ~10 years.

A more modest FIT that significantly relaxed the rules would be a lot of use.

For example, there are quite a few people with a garden where a panel can be
put on a structure that's little more than a shed, for _considerably_ less
money than a 'proper' install.

On Dec 13, 7:21 pm, (Ian Stirling) wrote:
george [dicegeorge] wrote:
On 12/12/10 09:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
wrote:
Surely it won't give you a pay-back.

8% payback thanks to subsidised prices for electrciity generated.

I'd get the estimated output in writing with a money back warranty if this
proves wildly out. As it invariably will.

I dont think you get government payback if you fit them yourself.

This is deeply annoying.

I can - with the aid of ebay - if I could get just net-metering, NOT
FIT, construct solar panels that would pay back in 3-5 years.

Doing it less hackily - not assembling panels myself - would still
be ~10 years.

mmm.... do share plse? (tis uk.d-i-y :) and Xmas..)

Jim K

On 13/12/2010 14:23, harry wrote:
On Dec 12, 5:20 pm, Andy wrote:

If you put it in the bank, you'd get interest. Says here in the paper
4.5% on a 5-year fixed rate bond. So your 8% payback is only 3.5% above
what you'd get on a bond _where you get your money back at the end of
the period_. So that 3.5% has to finance the capital only. It'll pay
off the capital in (1/3.5%) = about 28 years.

I'll pass thanks. You've only a 25 year guarantee on the scheme...

Andy

So how long does a motor car last? Also the price of electricity will
rise above inflation

I don't count a car as an investment.

You may be right about the price of power; I haven't factored in
inflation at all. If I did I might have to consider buying something
that _is_ an investment (Mining shares?) that might well grow faster
than inflation too, as an alternative to that cash bond.

I'd also point out that as PV panels are a new technology you can expect
the price/performance ratio to drop sharply over the next few years,
making your panels obsolete.

If I was going to do something exotic I'd think about this:

http://www.chpa.co.uk/micro-chp_190.html

(that's not a recommendation for the site BTW; just one that mentions it)

CHP is a well understood technology. As it is I don't think the payback
on that is good enough either...

Andy

In message
,
harry writes
On Dec 12, 1:09*pm, OG wrote:
On 12/12/2010 09:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
,
* * *wrote:
Surely it won't give you a pay-back.

8% payback thanks to subsidised prices for electrciity generated.

I'd get the estimated output in writing with a money back warranty if this
proves wildly out. As it invariably will.

According to my brother, who seriously looked into it:

The special Feed In Tariff for PV panels is based on nominal figures,
based on the size, type and alignment of the panels. As such, the amount
you can expect from your FIT payments should be known from the output -
and the idea that you could charge 12V batteries from economy 7 and feed
it back during the day is a non-starter. They won't pay you any more
than the agreed from the outset.

In the end, he wasn't able to take it up, because he couldn't get listed
building consent for the roof works needed to allow the panels to be
optimally aligned to maximise output.

He's got a CHP boiler instead and now gets a 3p/unit FIT for any excess
electricity generated when heating his home.

There are various payment bands based on the size of your array.
Obviously you need to size your array accordingly.

I'm sure out friends arrangement is a different. They recently ahd a
typically-ish domestic system fitted - about 2.4 kw I think.

the FIT is related to the output from the panels, but on their size of
system, rather than measure how much you actually fed into the grid
net, they just get paid the FIT on a fixed proportion of the output.

On larger systems (not sure of the cutoff point) they use a more complex
system.


--
Chris French

On 14/12/2010 12:26 AM, chris French wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
On Dec 12, 1:09 pm, OG wrote:
On 12/12/2010 09:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article
,
wrote:
Surely it won't give you a pay-back.

8% payback thanks to subsidised prices for electrciity generated.

I'd get the estimated output in writing with a money back warranty
if this
proves wildly out. As it invariably will.

According to my brother, who seriously looked into it:

The special Feed In Tariff for PV panels is based on nominal figures,
based on the size, type and alignment of the panels. As such, the amount
you can expect from your FIT payments should be known from the output -
and the idea that you could charge 12V batteries from economy 7 and feed
it back during the day is a non-starter. They won't pay you any more
than the agreed from the outset.

In the end, he wasn't able to take it up, because he couldn't get listed
building consent for the roof works needed to allow the panels to be
optimally aligned to maximise output.

He's got a CHP boiler instead and now gets a 3p/unit FIT for any excess
electricity generated when heating his home.

There are various payment bands based on the size of your array.
Obviously you need to size your array accordingly.

I'm sure out friends arrangement is a different. They recently ahd a
typically-ish domestic system fitted - about 2.4 kw I think.

the FIT is related to the output from the panels, but on their size of
system, rather than measure how much you actually fed into the grid net,
they just get paid the FIT on a fixed proportion of the output.

On larger systems (not sure of the cutoff point) they use a more complex
system.



4kWp is the maximum size for the highest FiT Band. The rating is
dictated by the certification of the panels. This would equate to about
32m^2 array area.

In my case I have a ~2kWp array since late January, facing approximately
SSE on a 35 deg pitch (from the horizontal) roof. The output is
separately metered. I am sure this is mandatory.

You are however also paid for "export". In my case this is unmetered
(but it's up to your provider)....I get paid about 3p/unit extra for
"deemed export" of 50% of all units generated.

And don't forget that by day you benefit from leccy you don't buy in the
first place.

All the payments are index linked and tax free.

In the past 10.5 months about 1830 kWh have been generated....even
though shading issues make winter performance non-optimum. I guess it
will be about 1870 by the anniversary. My expectation was about 1600 so
I am happy.

I've been logging the output so if anybody is vaguely interested here is
the graph up to yesterday: http://home.btconnect.com/vortex/solar.pdf

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:41:39 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:



I'd also point out that as PV panels are a new technology you can expect
the price/performance ratio to drop sharply over the next few years,
making your panels obsolete.


Andy

PV panels aren't new technology. The effect has been known since the
19th century, and panels with efficiencies not much worse than modern
ones have been available since the 1980s.

There is no reason to suppose that prices will drop dramatically. The
market is already quite large, so economies of scale are already
present. You can't reduce the amount of silicon needed to make them
unless the efficiency is improved; as the modules are already 15-20%
efficient there's not much practical room for improvement there.
I've seen some proposals for thin film manufacture on cheap
substartes, which could reduce prices slightly. Mounting and packaging
the collectors is a significant component of the final cost, and that
isn't going to become cheaper either.

High technology products have become cheaper mainly because component
sizes have shrunk dramatically over the past 40 years, meaning that
you can have many times the functionality of a device with the same,
or less material needed for manufacture.

Bill

On Dec 12, 11:10*am, "george [dicegeorge]"
wrote:
On 12/12/10 09:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article
,
* * *wrote:
Surely it won't give you a pay-back.

8% payback thanks to subsidised prices for electrciity generated.

I'd get the estimated output in writing with a money back warranty if this
proves wildly out. As it invariably will.

I dont think you get government payback if you fit them yourself.

I think they can fit them by sliding thin flat fixings up between the
slates and attaching them to the rafters higher up inside the roof.

[g]

Aren't slates always nailed onto sarking boards and wouldn't the
membrane get in the way?
Rob

On Dec 14, 10:25*am, robgraham wrote:
On Dec 12, 11:10*am, "george [dicegeorge]"
wrote:





On 12/12/10 09:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article
,
* * *wrote:
Surely it won't give you a pay-back.

8% payback thanks to subsidised prices for electrciity generated.

I'd get the estimated output in writing with a money back warranty if this
proves wildly out. As it invariably will.

I dont think you get government payback if you fit them yourself.

I think they can fit them by sliding thin flat fixings up between the
slates and attaching them to the rafters higher up inside the roof.

[g]

Aren't slates always nailed onto sarking boards and wouldn't the
membrane get in the way?
Rob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sarking boards are mostly a Scottish thing, you don't often see then
down here in England But your right about the felt. The problem with
slates is to repair a hole properly is a major operation whereas with
interlocking concrete tiles, they can be wangled in.

On 14 Dec,
robgraham wrote:

Aren't slates always nailed onto sarking boards and wouldn't the
membrane get in the way?

Sarking boards are mandatory in Scotland but unusual in E&W. Elsewhere I
don't know.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On 14/12/10 08:23, Bill Taylor wrote:


High technology products have become cheaper mainly because component
sizes have shrunk dramatically over the past 40 years, meaning that
you can have many times the functionality of a device with the same,
or less material needed for manufacture.

Nonsense. The cost of materials is trivial, the major cost is the capital
investment in the manufacturing plant. Once built the need is to keep it
running flat out and get back that investment before it is obsolete. Prices
have dropped because making as many as possible and, as the plant nears
obsolescence, selling at marginal cost.


--
djc

djc wrote:
On 14/12/10 08:23, Bill Taylor wrote:

High technology products have become cheaper mainly because component
sizes have shrunk dramatically over the past 40 years, meaning that
you can have many times the functionality of a device with the same,
or less material needed for manufacture.

Nonsense. The cost of materials is trivial, the major cost is the capital
investment in the manufacturing plant. Once built the need is to keep it
running flat out and get back that investment before it is obsolete. Prices
have dropped because making as many as possible and, as the plant nears
obsolescence, selling at marginal cost.


if you look at the investment sacle to make even something as small as
an LCD screen, you will realise that its MASSIVE. And accounts for most
of the cost of the screen even over '5 in very home' levels.

NONE of the LCD plant last time I was involved a few years back anywhere
in the East had paid for itself.

And with PV the whole idea is even more damaging than windfarms. At
least grass grows under turbines - cant be allowed near PV. weed kill
the lot to keep seeds out of the way, and of course its deep shade. PV
competes with the natural (carbon fixing) ecosystem for light

On Dec 14, 8:23*am, Bill Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:41:39 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:



I'd also point out that as PV panels are a new technology you can expect
the price/performance ratio to drop sharply over the next few years,
making your panels obsolete.

Andy

PV panels aren't new technology. The effect has been known since the
19th century, and panels with efficiencies not much worse than modern

Electric cars have been around for at least a century. Do you also
deny progress in that field?

ones have been available since the 1980s.

In the lab maybe, but not on anything like the commercial scale we
have now.

There is no reason to suppose that prices will drop dramatically. The
market is already quite large, so economies of scale are already
present. You can't reduce the amount of silicon needed to make them
unless the efficiency is improved; as the modules are already 15-20%
efficient there's not much practical room for improvement there.

Plenty of room for the future if you look into the research going on.

I've seen some proposals for thin film manufacture on cheap
substartes, which could reduce prices slightly. Mounting and packaging

Manufacturers have already begun leveraging the silicon process
knowledge from the semiconductir industry.

the collectors is a significant component of the final cost, and that
isn't going to become cheaper either.

Inverter technology is another major factor and that is already
changing and benefitting from new generations of components and
circuit topologies.

MBQ

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 06:24:54 -0800 (PST), "Man at B&Q"
wrote:

On Dec 14, 8:23*am, Bill Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:41:39 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:



I'd also point out that as PV panels are a new technology you can expect
the price/performance ratio to drop sharply over the next few years,
making your panels obsolete.

Andy

PV panels aren't new technology. The effect has been known since the
19th century, and panels with efficiencies not much worse than modern

Electric cars have been around for at least a century. Do you also
deny progress in that field?


Yes. There have been small improvements in battery technology, but EVs
are still very heavy and have a very limited range and performance.
Suitable for milk floats where they don't go very far and are
recharged over night, noy suitable for a general purpose i/c car
replacement, nor likely to be, until the oil runs out and you have
your own electricity generating capability.

ones have been available since the 1980s.

In the lab maybe, but not on anything like the commercial scale we
have now.

In the 80s micro processors were only just out of the lab stage.


There is no reason to suppose that prices will drop dramatically. The
market is already quite large, so economies of scale are already
present. You can't reduce the amount of silicon needed to make them
unless the efficiency is improved; as the modules are already 15-20%
efficient there's not much practical room for improvement there.

Plenty of room for the future if you look into the research going on.

Absolute maximum improvement of 4x, unlike the orders of magnitude
improvements in IC packing density, and that is pretty unlikely to
happen any time soon.

I've seen some proposals for thin film manufacture on cheap
substartes, which could reduce prices slightly. Mounting and packaging

Manufacturers have already begun leveraging the silicon process
knowledge from the semiconductir industry.

??

the collectors is a significant component of the final cost, and that
isn't going to become cheaper either.

Inverter technology is another major factor and that is already
changing and benefitting from new generations of components and
circuit topologies.


Good inverters are already 90% efficient so I don't see that
accounting for a huge improvement in performance.

Bill

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:23 am, Bill Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:41:39 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:



I'd also point out that as PV panels are a new technology you can expect
the price/performance ratio to drop sharply over the next few years,
making your panels obsolete.
Andy
PV panels aren't new technology. The effect has been known since the
19th century, and panels with efficiencies not much worse than modern

Electric cars have been around for at least a century. Do you also
deny progress in that field?
more or less yes. they are still not there, becasue we are waiting or
the batteries.

That's not progress, LIPOS are a paradigm shift.

You still cant get ore out of a battery than it can contain.

Ditto PV. its a very low energy density, is the sun on-planet thing.


ones have been available since the 1980s.

In the lab maybe, but not on anything like the commercial scale we
have now.


And they are no better. Limited by theory.

There is no reason to suppose that prices will drop dramatically. The
market is already quite large, so economies of scale are already
present. You can't reduce the amount of silicon needed to make them
unless the efficiency is improved; as the modules are already 15-20%
efficient there's not much practical room for improvement there.

Plenty of room for the future if you look into the research going on.


Predicated on the assumption we will always be forced to pay 10x the
going rate for PV elecricity.

Even if the panels were free, the fitting, and maintenance and storage
would not be. Its crap and you know it, and it always will be.


I've seen some proposals for thin film manufacture on cheap
substartes, which could reduce prices slightly. Mounting and packaging

Manufacturers have already begun leveraging the silicon process
knowledge from the semiconductir industry.

meaning precsel NOTHING. No one makes high yield wafers of 6 feet
across. Nor ever could econoimically, The chances of a flaw are too
great. That's why chips are SMALL the chances are that a 6" wafer with
1024 chips on it will yield less than half a dozen failures is good. The
chances that it will be flawless are almost nil.


the collectors is a significant component of the final cost, and that
isn't going to become cheaper either.

Inverter technology is another major factor and that is already
changing and benefitting from new generations of components and
circuit topologies.


Please talk about something you actually know about. Inverters are not a
sigificant proportion of the cost except in noddy domestic situations,
anyway, and nothing has changed in the last 20 yrs since the
introduction of high speed FET switches,. They are a bit better and a
bit cheaper, but not that much.

Ferrite and coper wire are still what they always were. Yes, chipsets
help with the rest, and squeeze a bit more off the cost base, but again,
we are talking pence not pounds.

In the end most production engineering is about swapping large labour
costs for large capital investments. Having done that, there really are
not many places left to go to reduce costs. Product development does not
markedly alter costs, but mature technologies where the plant is 'paid
for' can...but in this case the plant wont pay for itself for 20+ years,
if ever.

Never if I were king..it's a really silly way to make power.

The key to efficient power generation is high energy density. Coal, Oil
Gas, Uranium. Water in a lake up a mountain. Wind and PV utterly destroy
the spaces they need to collect low energy density wind and sunlight. As
one MP put it 'wreck the very environment we are trying to protect'





MBQ

On Dec 14, 2:35*pm, Bill Taylor wrote:

In the 80s micro processors were only just out of the lab stage.

Rubbish.

There is no reason to suppose that prices will drop dramatically. The
market is already quite large, so economies of scale are already
present. You can't reduce the amount of silicon needed to make them
unless the efficiency is improved; as the modules are already 15-20%
efficient there's not much practical room for improvement there.

Plenty of room for the future if you look into the research going on.

Absolute maximum improvement of 4x,

So 4x 20% is 80%? What are you talking about?


Inverter technology is another major factor and that is already
changing and benefitting from new generations of components and
circuit topologies.

Good inverters are already 90% efficient so I don't see that
accounting for a huge improvement in performance.

It's nothing to do with inverter efficiency, but the way thera
connected to the panels.

MBQ

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 06:23:26 -0800, harry wrote:

So how long does a motor car last?

For as long as you can get or make the parts for it, and assuming that
you have the tools and intelligence to do so yourself - and assuming that
legislation doesn't prevent you from using it on the road.

My truck's over 40 years old, but I can still walk into any of the parts
places in town and buy many of the mechanical and electrical components -
what will probably eventually prevent its use is if petrol becomes too
expensive or someone somewhere bans it on environmetal grounds...

cheers

Jules

harry wrote:

Anybody out there fitted/had fitted these to their roof? I was
thinking about going for it

Then you are a moron.

[snip]

There was a massive frame attached to the roof structure with V. large
CSA aluminium brackets.

There were about twenty of them. There were lead sleeves round them
for weathering.

Then they are morons of the same order as you.

djc wrote:

On 14/12/10 08:23, Bill Taylor wrote:


High technology products have become cheaper mainly because component
sizes have shrunk dramatically over the past 40 years, meaning that
you can have many times the functionality of a device with the same,
or less material needed for manufacture.

Nonsense. The cost of materials is trivial

Utter ****ing ********.

I take it you're one of those morons that thinks because sand is largely
Silicon Dioxide that Silicon is cheap.

On 14/12/2010 14:35, Bill Taylor wrote:
.... snipped

In the 80s micro processors were only just out of the lab stage.
.... snipped

Minor point, but I'm fairly certain I was designing with the 8080 in
1977, the z80 shortly afterwards and the 8086 in 1980

On 15/12/2010 in message NoSpam wrote:

On 14/12/2010 14:35, Bill Taylor wrote:
... snipped

In the 80s micro processors were only just out of the lab stage.
... snipped

Minor point, but I'm fairly certain I was designing with the 8080 in 1977,
the z80 shortly afterwards and the 8086 in 1980

I'm sure you're right. The Commodore Pet was released in January 1977, the
BBC in late 1981 and there were kit computers available before then.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
Indecision is the key to flexibility

On 15/12/10 00:18, Steve Firth wrote:
djc wrote:

On 14/12/10 08:23, Bill Taylor wrote:


High technology products have become cheaper mainly because component
sizes have shrunk dramatically over the past 40 years, meaning that
you can have many times the functionality of a device with the same,
or less material needed for manufacture.

Nonsense. The cost of materials is trivial

Utter ****ing ********.

I take it you're one of those morons that thinks because sand is largely
Silicon Dioxide that Silicon is cheap.

Who are you replying to? Anyway sand is cheap, processing it to make a chip
is expensive, it is expensive because of the capital investment needed to
build -at every stage of the process- a very expensive factory.




--
djc

djc wrote:

Who are you replying to?


Someone who knows (0) about the costs of producign OV panels.

Anyway sand is cheap, processing it to make a chip
is expensive, it is expensive because of the capital investment needed to
build -at every stage of the process- a very expensive factory.


Hence the cost of materials is not "trivial", nor are you correct to
claim that it is the capital cost of the factory that makes silicon
expensive. It takes a lot of fuel to make silicon crystals, that's where
much of the expense lies. The price of silicon is related proportionally
to the current price of oil.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:52:39 +0000, NoSpam wrote:

On 14/12/2010 14:35, Bill Taylor wrote: ... snipped

In the 80s micro processors were only just out of the lab stage.
... snipped

Minor point, but I'm fairly certain I was designing with the 8080 in
1977, the z80 shortly afterwards and the 8086 in 1980

I'm not quite sure what the poster's point was - I mean, you could get a
16-bit IMP-16 on a single reasonably-small PCB in 1973, and Intel's 4004
was 1971 IIRC. By the '80s microprocessors were cheap and everywhere...

cheers

Jules