This story caught my eye this morning.

http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/east-c...-solar-meadow/

A college plans to spend £300,000 on a solar array generating 1076 KW and
are expecting to save £150,000 a year on electricity bills. The surplus
will be used locally and there is no mention of any FIT.

Can this possibly work or has someone got their sums very wrong?

Tim

"Tim" wrote in message
...

This story caught my eye this morning.

http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/east-c...-solar-meadow/

A college plans to spend £300,000 on a solar array generating 1076 KW and
are expecting to save £150,000 a year on electricity bills. The surplus
will be used locally and there is no mention of any FIT.

Can this possibly work or has someone got their sums very wrong?

Tim

--

They've made the mistake of believing the manufacturers data sheets G

AWEM

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:47:51 +0000 (UTC), Tim
wrote:

http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/east-c...e-plans-to-end
-energy-bills-with-solar-meadow/

A college plans to spend £300,000 on a solar array generating 1076 KW

"will generate 1076KW of energy a day, enough to be energy
sufficient."

For start KW (uppercase K, 1024 multiplier not 1000?) W is a measure
of power (joules per second) not a measure of energy (joules).

are expecting to save £150,000 a year on electricity bills.

Assuming they mean 1076kWh per day at 15p/unit that's £59,000. If
it's at the FIT rate of 43p/unit you get £168,878.20... But as this
won't be finished until late 2012 they won't be on the 43p FIT but
21p (or something else if they fiddle with it again between now and
then).

The surplus will be used locally and there is no mention of any FIT.

How is it going to be used locally if they are off grid or are they
putting in their own loacl distribution. What happens on dull mid
winter cloudy days or at night?

Can this possibly work or has someone got their sums very wrong?

I think something has been lost in the translation in PR offices and
journalists.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 24/11/2011 07:47, Tim wrote:
This story caught my eye this morning.

http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/east-c...-solar-meadow/

A college plans to spend £300,000 on a solar array generating 1076 KW and
are expecting to save £150,000 a year on electricity bills. The surplus
will be used locally and there is no mention of any FIT.

Can this possibly work or has someone got their sums very wrong?

Harry apparently paid about £15000 for his 4KW array. The college is
paying about £1100 per 4KW (about 7.5%). 7.5% of 43.3p is 3.2p which is
very close to the export tariff (3.1p) for small domestic installations
so it is not totally uneconomic. If domestic installations are to get a
10% profit the college would appear to have a unit cost of about 2.9p.

If a 4KW array is expected to produce some 3300KWh then a 1076KW array
should produce about 888,000KWh. Saving £150,000 on 888,000KWh is about
17p a unit so to get the saving the college should currently be paying
approximately 20p per unit. (Or alternatively have I got my sums wrong).

I have no idea how comparatively large scale users are charged compared
with domestic customers but 20p a unit seems high to me.

--
Roger Chapman

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:55:46 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

I have no idea how comparatively large scale users are charged compared
with domestic customers but 20p a unit seems high to me.

Agreed, I'd expect less than 10p/unit on a commercial tarrif. You can
get that on domestic without too much trouble.

I forgot in my previous post that the FIT for 4kWp PV is lower than
43p/21p as well so it makes the sums even worse. Trouble is we don't
know what that "1076 KW" per day really is or how it's been derived.
They certainly won't be off grid unless they have some very
"innovative" way of storeing the daytime production for use at night
or when there is 4/5ths of sod all come from the "solar meadow"...

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:

Tim wrote:

A college plans to spend £300,000 on a solar array generating 1076 KW
expecting to save £150,000 a year on electricity bills.

Assuming they mean 1076kWh per day at 15p/unit that's £59,000. If
it's at the FIT rate of 43p/unit you get £168,878.20... But as this
won't be finished until late 2012 they won't be on the 43p FIT

They'd never have got onto the 43p tarrif with a development of such a
scale, we still don't know the scale of it, but with the new rates
they'll probably be on the 12.9 or 8.5p rates.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/feedin_tariff/fits_review/fits_review.aspx

Can this possibly work or has someone got their sums very wrong?

I'll bet the bursar had a squeaky bum one dy last month!

I think something has been lost in the translation in PR offices and
journalists.

COuldn't see any press release on their website.

On Nov 24, 7:47*am, Tim wrote:
This story caught my eye this morning.

http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/east-c...ge-plans-to-en...

A college plans to spend £300,000 on a solar array *generating 1076 KW and
are expecting to save £150,000 a year on electricity bills. The surplus
will be used locally and there is no mention of any FIT.

Can this possibly work or has someone got their sums very wrong?

Tim

If it is grid linked, it would have to be FIT there is no other
scheme to my knowledge.
They would have to have a very regular and predictable electricity use
and be using more in Summer than Winter.
There is not much scope for saving electricity in Winter.
Most of the money to be made is from the FITpayment.
But the price they are paying for the installation is about a tenth of
present prices.
So maybe it is viable.

Thinking about it some more, it would depend very much on how ideal
their site was.
The weather in Scotland is against them but the panels shown are
rotating ones, (follow the sun) this makes a big difference. I don't
see how they could get rotating ones for that money plus they take up
lots more space.
You would get more from the same sized panel compared to a fixed one.

But the very first sentence shows the bollock brain press in the
remark about "unplugging itself from the grid"

Dunno what the new FIT payment would be, it was £0.29 for a big
installation previously. The gov, site hasn't been updated.

harry wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:47 am, Tim wrote:
This story caught my eye this morning.

http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/east-c...ge-plans-to-en...

A college plans to spend £300,000 on a solar array generating 1076
KW and are expecting to save £150,000 a year on electricity bills.
The surplus will be used locally and there is no mention of any FIT.

Can this possibly work or has someone got their sums very wrong?

Tim

If it is grid linked, it would have to be FIT there is no other
scheme to my knowledge.
They would have to have a very regular and predictable electricity use
and be using more in Summer than Winter.
There is not much scope for saving electricity in Winter.
Most of the money to be made is from the FITpayment.
But the price they are paying for the installation is about a tenth of
present prices.

Isn't it more likely that the actual price is £3,000,000? If solar panel
really could be bought for that price and pay for themselves that quickly
I'm sure we'd be seeing an awful lot more solar farms.

Tim
So maybe it is viable.

On 24/11/2011 09:15, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:55:46 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

I have no idea how comparatively large scale users are charged compared
with domestic customers but 20p a unit seems high to me.

Agreed, I'd expect less than 10p/unit on a commercial tarrif. You can
get that on domestic without too much trouble.

I forgot in my previous post that the FIT for4kWp PV is lower than
43p/21p as well so it makes the sums even worse. Trouble is we don't
know what that "1076 KW" per day really is or how it's been derived.
They certainly won't be off grid unless they have some very
"innovative" way of storeing the daytime production for use at night
or when there is 4/5ths of sod all come from the "solar meadow"...


I took the 1076KW to be the maximum output of the array. The same usage
as we see in the domestic market. I had thought that the Government had
already killed off large scale PV generation but looking at:

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainabili...ust%202011.pdf

It appears that their FIT in years to come will be 8.5p per unit so on
an annual output of 888,000 units they get £75480 or about half of the
estimated saving. I can't see whether or not they also get an export
tariff which would bring their income up to about £100,000 pa if the
domestic figure is used. Well short of £150,000 but in the same ball
park and given the vagueness of some of my figures quite possible.

--
Roger Chapman

Roger Chapman wrote:

I took the 1076KW to be the maximum output of the array.

Could be, with 800 panels that would put each at 1.3kW, aren't most
domestic ones 4kW, three panels so same theoretical ballpark ? (or
maybe six, dunno I don't pay them much heed).

Dave Liquorice wrote:
"will generate 1076KW of energy a day, enough to be energy
sufficient."

For start KW (uppercase K, 1024 multiplier not 1000?) W is a measure
of power (joules per second) not a measure of energy (joules).

Upper case K is a unit, not a multiplier, so they're talking about
1076 * 1024 bytes Watts. Hmm. Data processing throughput?

Oo Oo! Maybe they mean Kelvin. 1076 Kelvin Watts. Thermodynamic
energy density???

JGH

On 24/11/2011 07:47, Tim wrote:
This story caught my eye this morning.

http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/east-c...-solar-meadow/

A college plans to spend £300,000 on a solar array generating 1076 KW and
are expecting to save £150,000 a year on electricity bills. The surplus
will be used locally and there is no mention of any FIT.

Can this possibly work or has someone got their sums very wrong?

Tim

Given that they cannot even get their units of energy right what do you
think?

Reputable solar arrays are now of the order of £2/W at best so spending
£300k will give them a 150kW peak PV array (ignoring control electronics
and installation for the moment). In a 12h day of continuous unbroken
sunshine that would deliver at most 1200kWhr per day and in midwinter
they will be lucky to get 60kWhr/day on average. It would have to track
the sun to do any better (which is unlikely).

Remind me how long the sunny winter days are in Edinburgh at 56N.

You could probably get the PV array price down another factor of 2 or so
by buying in bulk from Chinese companies no-one has ever heard of if you
don't mind taking a chance on ending up with nothing at all or dodgy
units that work briefly then leak and corrode in our climate.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Nov 24, 10:22*am, Andy Burns wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
I took the 1076KW to be the maximum output of the array.

Could be, with 800 panels that would put each at 1.3kW, aren't most
domestic ones 4kW, three panels so same theoretical ballpark ? (or
maybe six, dunno I don't pay them much heed).

The panels are usually quated a speak output in our climate. My panels
are185 w each which is on the larger end.

In most of Scotland they will get 790 Kwh/year for every installed
KWpeak.
In the south of Jockland its 830.

There is another not often mentioned factor.
If you put the panels on the roof they take up no space.
If you put the panels on the ground, they take up space that has to be
paid for and there is a lot of concrete etc.. Also the ground round/
under the array will need to be maintained. (Mow the grass?)

But there is no scaffolding cost and any maintenence/repairs are much
easier.

TurNiP keeps telling me I need to wash my panels down daily.
I never wash my car, why shouldI wash these panels?
It rains don't it?

Tim wrote:
This story caught my eye this morning.

http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/east-c...-solar-meadow/

A college plans to spend £300,000 on a solar array generating 1076 KW and
are expecting to save £150,000 a year on electricity bills. The surplus
will be used locally and there is no mention of any FIT.

Can this possibly work or has someone got their sums very wrong?

Tim
"generate 1076KW of energy a day"

A KW is not a unit of energy.

So is impossible to say what the thing means.

Lets say there is 1076KW of panel *capacity*. That's about 1000 square
meters. Not unreasonable - say 30 x 30m.

But if they reckon to install 1000 square meters of panels for £300,000
they must be on a different planet. Id say £1000/KW capacity is nearer
the mark so make that £1M installation, give or take.


Now the AVERAGE insolation in Scotland is about 90w/sq m day and night
summer and winter.

So at say - 30%? - efficiency that's 30W/sq meter so 30KW average,

rounding up to 10,000 hours in a year that's 300MWh.

At 20p extortion rate per unit that's £60,000 a year for electricity
whose wholesale value is about £12,000, and which could be bought retail
for around £30,0000

So net savings are £30,000 against a capital cost of about £1m

ROI of 3%?

Now add in 7.5% O & M and depreciation, and the O & M bill is now
£75,000 p.a.

So a net annual loss of £45,000 for a capital expenditure of a million.

You can see why solar PV is no longer worth installing when the FIT rate
drops from 45p to 20p a unit.

On Nov 24, 10:34*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 24/11/2011 07:47, Tim wrote:

This story caught my eye this morning.

http://m.stv.tv/news/scotland/east-c...ge-plans-to-en...

A college plans to spend £300,000 on a solar array *generating 1076 KW and
are expecting to save £150,000 a year on electricity bills. The surplus
will be used locally and there is no mention of any FIT.

Can this possibly work or has someone got their sums very wrong?

Tim

Given that they cannot even get their units of energy right what do you
think?

Reputable solar arrays are now of the order of £2/W at best so spending
£300k will give them a 150kW peak PV array (ignoring control electronics
and installation for the moment). In a 12h day of continuous unbroken
sunshine that would deliver at most 1200kWhr per day and in midwinter
they will be lucky to get 60kWhr/day on average. It would have to track
the sun to do any better (which is unlikely).

Remind me how long the sunny winter days are in Edinburgh at 56N.

You could probably get the PV array price down another factor of 2 or so
by buying in bulk from Chinese companies no-one has ever heard of if you
don't mind taking a chance on ending up with nothing at all or dodgy
units that work briefly then leak and corrode in our climate.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Nobody knows how low the price of a solar panel could fall. I bet the
Chinese knock them out for a tenner for the big ones.
The competition is just coming on right now.
Someone told me a 42" plasma TV costs £20 to actually make.

harry wrote:
Thinking about it some more, it would depend very much on how ideal
their site was.
The weather in Scotland is against them but the panels shown are
rotating ones, (follow the sun) this makes a big difference.
No it doesn't.

You cant get out of the fact that aveerage scottish insolation is less
than 100W/sq meter.


Ok angling them increases their effective 'sadow' but even so it aint
brilliant and the COST of MAINTAINING all those servo motors..


I don't
see how they could get rotating ones for that money plus they take up
lots more space.
You would get more from the same sized panel compared to a fixed one.

But the very first sentence shows the bollock brain press in the
remark about "unplugging itself from the grid"

Dunno what the new FIT payment would be, it was £0.29 for a big
installation previously. The gov, site hasn't been updated.

Sounds about right.

On 24/11/2011 10:49, harry wrote:
On Nov 24, 10:34 am, Martin
wrote:

Remind me how long the sunny winter days are in Edinburgh at 56N.

You could probably get the PV array price down another factor of 2 or so
by buying in bulk from Chinese companies no-one has ever heard of if you
don't mind taking a chance on ending up with nothing at all or dodgy
units that work briefly then leak and corrode in our climate.

I am talking about available from makers now (at least in theory
according to their websites) as opposed to "jam tomorrow" promises.

Nobody knows how low the price of a solar panel could fall. I bet the
Chinese knock them out for a tenner for the big ones.

Cost to make them is bounded by the high cost of refining pure silicon
or even more exotic III-V semiconductor compounds at present. If someone
can produce screen or inkjet printable organic chemistry PV that is
photostable in sunlight that would be game changing even if the
efficiency was relatively poor. Until that happens the cost of PV will
always be high because they are competing for refined silicon against
the semiconductor industry and chipmakers have deeper pockets,

The competition is just coming on right now.
Someone told me a 42" plasma TV costs £20 to actually make.

And you believed them? I'd hazard a guess that even for the bare screen
with no electronics at all that number is low by at least factor of two.

Would you like to buy London Bridge?

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Nov 24, 10:52*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
Thinking about it some more, it would depend very much on how ideal
their site was.
The weather in Scotland is against them but the panels shown are
rotating ones, (follow the sun) this makes a big difference.

No it doesn't.

You cant get out of the fact that aveerage scottish insolation is less
than 100W/sq meter.

Ok angling them increases their effective 'sadow' but even so it aint
brilliant and the COST of MAINTAINING all those servo motors..

I don't

see how they could get rotating ones for that money plus they take up
lots more space.
You would get more from the same sized panel compared to a fixed one.

But the very first sentence shows the bollock brain press in the
remark about "unplugging itself from the grid"

Dunno what the new FIT payment would be, it was £0.29 for a big
installation previously. The gov, site hasn't been updated.

Sounds about right.

As usual you are a f***ghalf wit.
If rotating didn't make any difference, they wouldn't make them.
The axis of rotation is not vertical either so the sunlight falls on
the panels at near 90deg.
Similar to astronomical telescope setup.

Tim wrote:

A college plans to spend £300,000 on a solar array

Their own news article is up now, but doesn't fill any of the holes

http://www.jec.ac.uk/index.php/news/...or-jewel-a-esk

They claim to have submitted planning application in early November, but
I can't see them on the list

https://planning-applications.midlothian.gov.uk/

On 24/11/2011 11:09, harry wrote:
On Nov 24, 10:52 am, The Natural
wrote:
harry wrote:
Thinking about it some more, it would depend very much on how ideal
their site was.
The weather in Scotland is against them but the panels shown are
rotating ones, (follow the sun) this makes a big difference.

No it doesn't.

I suppose it depends what you call a big difference. The geometry of
full solar tracking to maintain normal incidence in full sunlight gives
100% illumination - untracked but set at optimum declination gives about
63% (and you have to adjust with the seasons or suffer additional losses).

There is no advantage to tracking at all on cloudy days - and possibly a
slight disadvantage.

So there is a nearly 60% improvement in output by tracking the sun
continuously when it is shining - provided that the array does not
become self shading (which it will at low solar altitudes).

A better advantage on a ground based installation can be had by
surrounding the collector plates by non focussing flux concentrators and
providing active water cooling (ie. hot water supply out) to the backs
of the panels to keep them from cooking. Most could survive a 3-5x
increase in incident flux and generate additional power. Mirrors are
cheap by comparison to the panels. Non focussing technology also means
that PV output is also 3x higher on dull days too.

You cant get out of the fact that aveerage scottish insolation is less
than 100W/sq meter.

Ok angling them increases their effective 'sadow' but even so it aint
brilliant and the COST of MAINTAINING all those servo motors..

And they have to cope with the wind loading of the solar sails. Scotland
has some pretty juicy gales so it should be lots of fun.

I don't

see how they could get rotating ones for that money plus they take up
lots more space.
You would get more from the same sized panel compared to a fixed one.

But the very first sentence shows the bollock brain press in the
remark about "unplugging itself from the grid"

Dunno what the new FIT payment would be, it was £0.29 for a big
installation previously. The gov, site hasn't been updated.

Sounds about right.

As usual you are a f***ghalf wit.
If rotating didn't make any difference, they wouldn't make them.

Your faith in sales and marketing men telling the truth is touching. I
expect total cost of ownership of these active tracking solar panels to
be *insanely* high and predicted yields hopelessly optimistic.

The axis of rotation is not vertical either so the sunlight falls on
the panels at near 90deg.
Similar to astronomical telescope setup.

The picture shows them on vertical stalks. Are they really equatorially
mounted onto the poles? It doesn't look like it from the photos. And it
looks like they were at least installed at a sensible *SUNNY* latitude.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 24/11/2011 11:18, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim wrote:

A college plans to spend £300,000 on a solar array

Their own news article is up now, but doesn't fill any of the holes

http://www.jec.ac.uk/index.php/news/...or-jewel-a-esk


It speaks volumes about their scientific and engineering credibility
that the basic energy units error is replicated on their own site. It is
apparently not a result of clueless idiot journalists paraphrasing and
horribly mangling an originally correct press release.

They claim to have submitted planning application in early November, but
I can't see them on the list

https://planning-applications.midlothian.gov.uk/

I think it will be highly amusing to follow this one in detail.

I would love to see the ROI calculations that support this boondoggle!

Either they are being monumentally ripped off by their electricity
supplier or someone has put a decimal point in the wrong place.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 24/11/2011 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

At 20p extortion rate per unit that's £60,000 a year for electricity
whose wholesale value is about £12,000, and which could be bought retail
for around £30,0000

The site I quoted earlier definitely states that as from FIT year 3 such
schemes will only get 8.5p per unit. Mind you it also says that for
domestic 4KW schemes both FIT year 1 and FIT year 2 is 43.3p so who
knows what other errors have been introduced.

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainabili...ust%202011.pdf

--
Roger Chapman

Roger Chapman wrote:

The site I quoted earlier definitely states that as from FIT year 3 such
schemes will only get 8.5p per unit. Mind you it also says that for
domestic 4KW schemes both FIT year 1 and FIT year 2 is 43.3p so who
knows what other errors have been introduced.

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainabili...ust%202011.pdf

That's pre-review, try

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/feedin_tariff/fits_review/fits_review.aspx

Roger Chapman wrote:

The site I quoted earlier definitely states that as from FIT year 3 such
schemes will only get 8.5p per unit. Mind you it also says that for
domestic 4KW schemes both FIT year 1 and FIT year 2 is 43.3p so who
knows what other errors have been introduced.

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainabili...ust%202011.pdf

Are you sure you have understood that this table shows the
_starting_ rate, not the rate to be paid for existing
installations in subsequent years.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

Andy Burns wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:

The site I quoted earlier definitely states that as from FIT year 3 such
schemes will only get 8.5p per unit. Mind you it also says that for
domestic 4KW schemes both FIT year 1 and FIT year 2 is 43.3p so who
knows what other errors have been introduced.

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainabili...ust%202011.pdf


That's pre-review, try

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/feedin_tariff/fits_review/fits_review.aspx


The answer is of course to split big farms into little ones, each
attracting a higher FIT tariff.. the whole thing is bonkers. More loop
holes than an S & M leather jacket..

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/feedin_tariff/fits_review/fits_review.aspx

The answer is of course to split big farms into little ones, each
attracting a higher FIT tariff.. the whole thing is bonkers. More loop
holes than an S & M leather jacket..

I think there's something to "catch" operators of multiple smaller
schemes, I've not got any reference to it though. It depends how far to
the n'th degree the operators want to split their business of course,
hopefully EcoBollox Group Ltd, which owns EcoBollox Site1 Ltd to
EcoBollox Site99 Ltd isn't sufficient to qualify ...

On 24/11/2011 12:32, Andy Burns wrote:

The site I quoted earlier definitely states that as from FIT year 3 such
schemes will only get 8.5p per unit. Mind you it also says that for
domestic 4KW schemes both FIT year 1 and FIT year 2 is 43.3p so who
knows what other errors have been introduced.

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainabili...ust%202011.pdf


That's pre-review, try

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/feedin_tariff/fits_review/fits_review.aspx


The summary on that page gives the 8.35p rate along with the information
that there is no current intention to change it. There is a link to
"Full information about the proposed tariffs" but none of the multiple
links that lead on fits that bill.

--
Roger Chapman

Roger Chapman wrote:

On 24/11/2011 12:32, Andy Burns wrote:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/feedin_tariff/fits_review/fits_review.aspx

The summary on that page gives the 8.35p rate

Yes, thae rate for larger schemes didn't get cut, but we still don't
know what rate applies to the meadow ...

along with the information
that there is no current intention to change it.

The 8.5p rate isn't /outrageous/ it depends if their costs really are
going to be 300 grand, and if their output matches predictions. As
they're a college with an 'energy dept' maybe they've got them dirt
cheap in some sort of sponsorship scheme?

On 24/11/2011 12:39, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:

The site I quoted earlier definitely states that as from FIT year 3 such
schemes will only get 8.5p per unit. Mind you it also says that for
domestic4KW schemes both FIT year 1 and FIT year 2 is 43.3p so who
knows what other errors have been introduced.

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainabili...ust%202011.pdf

Are you sure you have understood that this table shows the
_starting_ rate, not the rate to be paid for existing
installations in subsequent years.

Let me pose a question of my own. What was the starting rate for
domestic 4KW schemes for FIT year 1?


--
Roger Chapman

On 24/11/2011 13:26, Andy Burns wrote:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/feedin_tariff/fits_review/fits_review.aspx


The summary on that page gives the 8.35p rate

Yes, thae rate for larger schemes didn't get cut, but we still don't
know what rate applies to the meadow ...

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.

along with the information
that there is no current intention to change it.

The 8.5p rate isn't /outrageous/ it depends if their costs really are
going to be 300 grand, and if their output matches predictions. As
they're a college with an 'energy dept' maybe they've got them dirt
cheap in some sort of sponsorship scheme?

I am still more than a little confused as to what they are really doing.
The college says 700 to 800 panels. Either the panels involved are much
bigger than the ones we see on domestic housing or the array size is
nowhere near 1076KW. If the 1076 figure is really in KWhs then the
probability is that they are aiming to squeeze into the 250KW category
where the initial FIT will be 12.9p (down from 15p).

The college report implies they won't be connected to the grid: "Surplus
electricity will be made available to local community groups and
projects, reducing their energy costs" but I will only believe that when
they can show how they are going "to be self-sufficient with electricity
and not rely on the National Grid".


--
Roger Chapman

Roger Chapman wrote:
On 24/11/2011 12:39, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:

The site I quoted earlier definitely states that as from FIT year 3 such
schemes will only get 8.5p per unit. Mind you it also says that for
domestic4KW schemes both FIT year 1 and FIT year 2 is 43.3p so who
knows what other errors have been introduced.

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainabili...ust%202011.pdf


Are you sure you have understood that this table shows the
_starting_ rate, not the rate to be paid for existing
installations in subsequent years.

Let me pose a question of my own. What was the starting rate for
domestic 4KW schemes for FIT year 1?


45p

Roger Chapman wrote:

I am still more than a little confused as to what they are really doing.
The college says 700 to 800 panels. Either the panels involved are much
bigger than the ones we see on domestic housing or the array size is
nowhere near 1076KW. If the 1076 figure is really in KWhs then the
probability is that they are aiming to squeeze into the 250KW category
where the initial FIT will be 12.9p (down from 15p).

The college report implies they won't be connected to the grid: "Surplus
electricity will be made available to local community groups and
projects, reducing their energy costs" but I will only believe that when
they can show how they are going "to be self-sufficient with electricity
and not rely on the National Grid".


Its just a load of greenspun greenwash.

Subsidy harvesting probably - they got a grant from somewhere.

None of it adds up or makes any sense.

But since is not a product advertisement its not required to do so.

Andy Burns wrote:
Tim wrote:

A college plans to spend £300,000 on a solar array

Their own news article is up now, but doesn't fill any of the holes

http://www.jec.ac.uk/index.php/news/...or-jewel-a-esk

They claim to have submitted planning application in early November,
but I can't see them on the list

https://planning-applications.midlothian.gov.uk/


I thought I'd found it (planning ref 10/00500/DPP) but that turns out to be
for a single water heating solar panel.

https://planning-applications.midlot...ment-73536.pdf

Tim

On 24/11/2011 13:55, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 24/11/2011 13:26, Andy Burns wrote:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/feedin_tariff/fits_review/fits_review.aspx



The summary on that page gives the 8.35p rate

Yes, thae rate for larger schemes didn't get cut, but we still don't
know what rate applies to the meadow ...

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.

along with the information
that there is no current intention to change it.

The 8.5p rate isn't /outrageous/ it depends if their costs really are
going to be 300 grand, and if their output matches predictions. As
they're a college with an 'energy dept' maybe they've got them dirt
cheap in some sort of sponsorship scheme?

I am still more than a little confused as to what they are really doing.
The college says 700 to 800 panels. Either the panels involved are much
bigger than the ones we see on domestic housing or the array size is
nowhere near 1076KW. If the 1076 figure is really in KWhs then the
probability is that they are aiming to squeeze into the 250KW category
where the initial FIT will be 12.9p (down from 15p).

Seems likely to me they are 250W or maybe 400W panels at most so
somewhere in the range of 200kW to 320kW peak. I think wind loading on
these trackable panels will be somewhat entertaining. I think your guess
of targetting the 250kW category highly likely.

The college report implies they won't be connected to the grid: "Surplus
electricity will be made available to local community groups and
projects, reducing their energy costs" but I will only believe that when
they can show how they are going "to be self-sufficient with electricity
and not rely on the National Grid".

Especially at night ;-)

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 24/11/2011 14:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Let me pose a question of my own. What was the starting rate for
domestic 4KW schemes for FIT year 1?


45p

I can't find any reference to it now but it is my understanding that the
starting figure for FIT year 1 was 41.3p.
--
Roger Chapman

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.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:
On 24/11/2011 13:26, Andy Burns wrote:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/feedin_tariff/fits_review/fits_review.aspx


The summary on that page gives the 8.35p rate

Yes, thae rate for larger schemes didn't get cut, but we still don't
know what rate applies to the meadow ...

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.

along with the information
that there is no current intention to change it.

The 8.5p rate isn't /outrageous/ it depends if their costs really are
going to be 300 grand, and if their output matches predictions. As
they're a college with an 'energy dept' maybe they've got them dirt
cheap in some sort of sponsorship scheme?

I am still more than a little confused as to what they are really doing.
The college says 700 to 800 panels. Either the panels involved are much
bigger than the ones we see on domestic housing or the array size is
nowhere near 1076KW. If the 1076 figure is really in KWhs then the
probability is that they are aiming to squeeze into the 250KW category
where the initial FIT will be 12.9p (down from 15p).

The college report implies they won't be connected to the grid: "Surplus
electricity will be made available to local community groups and
projects, reducing their energy costs" but I will only believe that when
they can show how they are going "to be self-sufficient with electricity
and not rely on the National Grid".

I can think of two reasons why they wont connect to the "National Grid".
1. They are in Scotland
2. Private consumers are never connected to 'The National Grid'. Theya re
connected to the distribution network of whoever provides the local
infra-structure.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

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

Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/11/2011 13:55, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 24/11/2011 13:26, Andy Burns wrote:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/feedin_tariff/fits_review/fits_review.aspx




The summary on that page gives the 8.35p rate

Yes, thae rate for larger schemes didn't get cut, but we still don't
know what rate applies to the meadow ...

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.

along with the information
that there is no current intention to change it.

The 8.5p rate isn't /outrageous/ it depends if their costs really are
going to be 300 grand, and if their output matches predictions. As
they're a college with an 'energy dept' maybe they've got them dirt
cheap in some sort of sponsorship scheme?

I am still more than a little confused as to what they are really doing.
The college says 700 to 800 panels. Either the panels involved are much
bigger than the ones we see on domestic housing or the array size is
nowhere near 1076KW. If the 1076 figure is really in KWhs then the
probability is that they are aiming to squeeze into the 250KW category
where the initial FIT will be 12.9p (down from 15p).

Seems likely to me they are 250W or maybe 400W panels at most so
somewhere in the range of 200kW to 320kW peak. I think wind loading on
these trackable panels will be somewhat entertaining. I think your guess
of targetting the 250kW category highly likely.

its probably a 1076Kwh/day figure then

Though wha that means is again anyone's guess..on a foggy grey day in
scottish winter.


The college report implies they won't be connected to the grid: "Surplus
electricity will be made available to local community groups and
projects, reducing their energy costs" but I will only believe that when
they can show how they are going "to be self-sufficient with electricity
and not rely on the National Grid".

Especially at night ;-)

nah. hook up the diesels and claim the solar FIT
Regards,
Martin Brown