The Natural Philosopher wrote:

- make the government look green and hence electable (it does to the
over half of the electorate)

Fixed that for you

--
Tim Watts

Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:

On Nov 27, 8:50 am, Andy wrote:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/electric%20bill%20payers%27%20money%...


Well far from ideal. I expect they'll get around half the money/
output an ideally orientated array would give. I have a chart
somewhere ifyou want an exact figure.

The estimator at

http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/

claimed 655kWh per year per kW of installed capacity, so worth 68p/day
at non-FIT rates.

? what?

655KWh per year is slightly less than 2 units a day, worth about 8-10p
at current WHOLESALE rates

Or at most 20p at retail rates.

Only the FIT makes it remotely profitable..wit but prices at around 25p
a unit.

Tim Watts wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

- make the government look green and hence electable (it does to the
over half of the electorate)

Fixed that for you

nothing inconsistent in wither version. Over half the electorate must be
stupid to vote the way they do.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

655kWh per year per kW of installed capacity, so worth 68p/day
at non-FIT rates.

? what?

Sorry, I meant for a 4kW installed system, which I assume most domestic
ones are ...

On 27/11/2011 17:08, tim.... wrote:
I don't think he literally meant "tomorrow".

He means that you will have to wait to find a buyer from the subset of
people who are prepared to buy BOTH your house and the solar panel
investment.

You could wait forever for this person to come along

I know a fair number of people who have taken advantage of the FIT
scheme. Heck, if I had a suitable roof, I'd have done so. Judging by the
numbers, I reckon the panels would easily add to the value of the house
if still working happily, and probably make it easier to sell.

Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

655kWh per year per kW of installed capacity, so worth 68p/day
at non-FIT rates.

? what?

Sorry, I meant for a 4kW installed system, which I assume most domestic
ones are ...


so you reckon 8.5p a unit? still well above grid buy prices on all but
the most extreme conditions.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

655kWh per year per kW of installed capacity, so worth 68p/day
at non-FIT rates.

? what?

Sorry, I meant for a 4kW installed system, which I assume most
domestic ones are ...

so you reckon 8.5p a unit? still well above grid buy prices on all but
the most extreme conditions.

"Worth" to a normal person buying it, not a utility selling it, or a FIT
rip off. It was something like 1.7kWh per day per 1kW capacity, so I
took that as 17p and then scaled up to a typical installation.

On 26/11/2011 20:36, Roger Chapman wrote:
Target inflation is 2.5%. Given the recent failure to hit target
undershooting may be the order of the day once the present mess is
tidied up.

Good.

Even 2.5% will increase prices by 50% over the average pension period.
Inflation is a government sanctioned tax on savings.

Andy

On 27/11/2011 01:41, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
My loft goes up to 55C. Not often. Only when the sun's really strong;-)

I presume the panels will shade harry's roof a bit.

Andy

Andy Champ wrote:

On 27/11/2011 01:41, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
My loft goes up to 55C. Not often. Only when the sun's really strong;-)

I presume the panels will shade harry's roof a bit.

This was the theory with the safari roofs on Land Rovers, I had one on a
works vehicle but not convinced it made much difference in UK.

AJH

On Nov 27, 9:22*pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 27/11/2011 01:41, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

My loft goes up to 55C. Not often. Only when the sun's really strong;-)

I presume the panels will shade harry's roof a bit.

Andy


There is a noticable difference in the loft temperature but I haven't
actually measured it.

Andy Burns wrote:

The estimator at
http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/

JOOI harry, how well does the estimate from that compare to your output
month by month?

On 27/11/2011 18:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
On 27/11/2011 12:33, dennis@home wrote:

Against all the odds the deniers get proved right and AGW turns out to
be a flawed theory or, more likely, AGW is overtaken by the next Ice
Age which, by some counts at least, is already overdue.

There are already reports that are backing away from the CO2 GW claims.
There are even claims that CO2 behaves differently when the climate is
cold to when the climate is hot, just to avoid the consequences of the
data not supporting AGW. So who are the deniers?

But the data does support AGW.

The data supporst SOME AGW, but in reality it cant be all CO2 or the
historical record would not be the way it is .

Agreed. But this is a straw man invented by the deniers for hire.

No-one in the scientific community thinks it is all one or all the
other. There are strong astrophysical reasons for expecting the sun to
very slowly get brighter on geological timescales and to vary slightly
on shorter timescales with the number of sunspots for instance. The
climate models all incorporate these factors and the solar flux has been
carefully monitored by satellite over the past four decades.

About half of all the warming in the past 150 years has been due to
variation in the solar flux, but the other half has been strongly
correlated with GHG increases since about 1970 when it became impossible
to ignore. That 40 years of GHG forcing has overtaken 150 years of
natural warming means we do have to take it seriously.

Even the true scientific sceptics admit they cannot balance the books
after 1970 without including GHG forcing. The scientific community is
agreed on this although you will still find well known deniers for hire
manufacturing disagreements to mislead the public.

I think some of the warming seen in that period was also due to cyclic
components with a roughly 60 period, but enough of it was due to GHG
forcing that we should now be doing something about it. We should be in
a slow cooling phase at the moment but global temperature is holding
steady.

"Simething is happening here,
But you dont (quite) know what it is
Do you, Mr Jones?"

That the models are not yet perfect does not mean that you can ignore
their predictions just because they are inconvenient.

The sensible opposition argue that its effects are much less than the
mainstream consensus currently believes. The deniers include those who
do not accept either that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that the
greenhouse effect doesn't exist and the fundamentalist deniers who
claim the world hasn't actually been warming at all over the last 150
years.

That would be the correct definition of a denier, but in reality its
applied to anyone who doesn't believe totally that AGW is the main
driver of modern climate warming, or that the IPCC's predictions are
anything less than 100% reliable.

No. That would be a true sceptic. I rate Lindzen as about borderline on
this spectrum - he certainly knows what he is talking about and has
provided critiques of the atmospheric climate models that have led to
improvements. I still rate him as a sceptic (many would not). His ideas
on second hand tobacco smoke are pretty whacky though.

But beyond that there are a bunch of well paid lobbyists and prostitute
scientists who are paid by the likes of Exxon through various front
organisations to deliberately mislead the public.

If you want to check the scientific integrity of a "denier for hire"
look back to see what position they took on CFCs and the ozone layer and
smoking tobacco. If they were or are still lobbying that both are
harmless you can safely discount anything they say about AGW as a pack
of well crafted lies and half truths intended to mislead.

The canonical "denier for hire" was the late Fred Seitz who in his day
was an important solid state physicist and later head of Rockerfeller
University. He went on to prostitute his scientific credentials for big
tobacco. Thanks to tobacco companies having been forced by US freedom of
information rules to disclose their correspondence we can see as early
as 1989 what his paymasters in "Big Tobacco" thought of him.

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/h...EF.to bacco03

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...


I think some of the warming seen in that period was also due to cyclic
components with a roughly 60 period, but enough of it was due to GHG
forcing that we should now be doing something about it. We should be in a
slow cooling phase at the moment but global temperature is holding steady.

That is just clutching at straws.. the cycle of cooling/warming isn't
understood well enough to know exactly when the cooling will start.
One of the biggest known variations is the solar flux and we know that solar
activity varies with about a 60 year cycle but it hasn't been possible to
actually monitor it to know for sure how much or over what period it
actually happens.

harry wrote:

There is a noticeable difference in ...temperature but I haven't
actually measured it.

Harry is obviously angling for a job at the Unveersity of East Anglia
Climate Change department....they say stuff like that all the time, and
call it science or fact..

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:27:51 +0000, andrew
wrote:

I presume the panels will shade harry's roof a bit.

This was the theory with the safari roofs on Land Rovers, I had one on a
works vehicle but not convinced it made much difference in UK.

I had one, it worked.

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:35:55 -0000, "Stewith"
wrote:

Now they have reduced the money given for new installations, if I sold
my house, the desireabilty of it has increased as there will be no
more installations generating this amount of return.


You say that it will add to the value of the property if sold; has this
been proven anywhere?. Personally I think they look terrible, and
are an eyesore on the homes that have them in my area.

Would you mind putting a seperator line

-----------------------
or
===============

between quoted text and your own? I appreciate Windows Live Mail is a
great steaming pile of dung, but the small things make a difference to
the reading of the message.

On Nov 28, 8:10*am, Andy Burns wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
The estimator at
http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/

JOOI harry, how well does the estimate from that compare to your output
month by month?


The one I haveis for estimating the annual return on capital.
It has an "isosunshine" map that shows how how many KWh/year/Kw
installed you can expect from an ideal site.

(Ideal = facing due South and inclined @35deg.)

There is a chart for de-rating non-ideal sites.

Other varible is shadows, harder to determine effects

Eg for where i live the number is 830.
So I can expect 3.88 x 830 Kwh/year. My site is near ideal so no de-
rating is required.
If you want it, I can email it to you. Self explanatory.

On Nov 28, 12:44*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:

There is a noticeable difference in ...temperature but I haven't
actually measured it.

Harry is obviously angling for a job at the Unveersity of East Anglia
Climate Change department....they say stuff like that all the time, and
call it science or fact..


I don't believe the temperature in my loft has much bearing on global
warming.

On Nov 28, 7:51 pm, harry wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:10 am, Andy Burns wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:
The estimator at
http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/

JOOI harry, how well does the estimate from that compare to your output
month by month?

The one I haveis for estimating the annual return on capital.
It has an "isosunshine" map that shows how how many KWh/year/Kw
installed you can expect from an ideal site.

(Ideal = facing due South and inclined @35deg.)

There is a chart for de-rating non-ideal sites.

Other varible is shadows, harder to determine effects

Eg for where i live the number is 830.
So I can expect 3.88 x 830 Kwh/year. My site is near ideal so no de-
rating is required.
If you want it, I can email it to you. Self explanatory.

er? I thought you had some whizzo gadget that tells you how many units/
£s you have coined per day/week/month to compare with the online
estimator linked to...?

Jim K

harry wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

JOOI harry, how well does the estimate from that compare to your output
month by month?

The one I haveis for estimating the annual return on capital.
It has an "isosunshine" map that shows how how many KWh/year/Kw
installed you can expect from an ideal site.

(Ideal = facing due South and inclined @35deg.)
There is a chart for de-rating non-ideal sites.
Other varible is shadows, harder to determine effects

Eg for where i live the number is 830.
So I can expect 3.88 x 830 Kwh/year. My site is near ideal so no de-
rating is required.
If you want it, I can email it to you. Self explanatory.

There's no need thanks, I was just trying to get a datapoint on your
real-world output vs the theoretical prediction ... I suppose this year
has probably been better than average anyway.

wrote in message
...

Would you mind putting a seperator line

Why? WLM is quite capable of using conventional quoting.
You can even type in sigs..

--
here's one.

dennis@home wrote:

WLM is quite capable of using conventional quoting.

WLM 2009 (aka V14) may be, but WLM 2011 (aka V15) is utterly incpable.

Andy Burns wrote:

There's no need thanks, I was just trying to get a datapoint on your
real-world output vs the theoretical prediction ... I suppose this year
has probably been better than average anyway.

It seems to be agreed that one of the best prediction tools is
http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php

As for what we have actually had,
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomacts/
shows the sunshine hours compared with the average. Certainly my
area has been a little above average, but even corrected for
this, my generation has been slightly above prediction.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

Chris J Dixon wrote:

It seems to be agreed that one of the best prediction tools is
http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php

yep thanks, that was the one I was asking about, just wondering even
with harry's bumper spring/summer if it was optimisitic or not?

As for what we have actually had,
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomacts/
shows the sunshine hours compared with the average. Certainly my
area has been a little above average, but even corrected for
this, my generation has been slightly above prediction.

Thanks.

On 28/11/2011 19:51, harry wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:10 am, Andy wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
The estimator at
http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/

JOOI harry, how well does the estimate from that compare to your output
month by month?


The one I haveis for estimating the annual return on capital.
It has an "isosunshine" map that shows how how many KWh/year/Kw
installed you can expect from an ideal site.

(Ideal = facing due South and inclined @35deg.)

Ideal in the UK is facing due south and inclined at roughly 98-latitude
degrees. You gain more by optimising slightly in favour of summer which
is where the extra 8 degrees comes from (it is latitude dependent).
Might be 7 degrees further south. It is only worth another 1% or so.

There is a chart for de-rating non-ideal sites.

Roughly goes as Cos(angular distance)

Other varible is shadows, harder to determine effects

Shadows on the array are bad news and sap output power.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Nov 28, 8:17*pm, Jim K wrote:
On Nov 28, 7:51 pm, harry wrote:





On Nov 28, 8:10 am, Andy Burns wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:
The estimator at
http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/

JOOI harry, how well does the estimate from that compare to your output
month by month?

The one I haveis for estimating the annual return on capital.
It has an "isosunshine" map that shows how how many KWh/year/Kw
installed you can expect from an ideal site.

(Ideal = facing due South and inclined @35deg.)

There is a chart for de-rating non-ideal sites.

Other varible is shadows, harder to determine effects

Eg for where i live the number is 830.
So I can expect 3.88 x 830 Kwh/year. My site is near ideal so no de-
rating is required.
If you want it, I can email it to you. Self explanatory.

er? I thought you had some whizzo gadget that tells you how many units/
£s you have coined per day/week/month to compare with the online
estimator linked to...?

Jim K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pen and notepad,
You're thinking of Bob, he is well into all the geekery.
I think he has a website with continuous updates on his PV array.

On Nov 29, 7:02*am, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:

There's no need thanks, I was just trying to get a datapoint on your
real-world output vs the theoretical prediction ... I suppose this year
has probably been better than average anyway.

It seems to be agreed that one of the best prediction tools ishttp://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php

I have about 10% more than this to date. However, November will be a
bad month.

harry wrote:
On Nov 29, 7:02 am, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:

There's no need thanks, I was just trying to get a datapoint on your
real-world output vs the theoretical prediction ... I suppose this year
has probably been better than average anyway.
It seems to be agreed that one of the best prediction tools ishttp://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php

I have about 10% more than this to date. However, November will be a
bad month.

It will be a good month. With most eletricity being generated by coal
and nuclear, electricity prices can only fall.

Now we have to get rid of this bloody wind as well, and we will be back
to cheap electricity!