According to:

http://www.fwi.co.uk/business/hampsh...ks-largest.htm

48 MW solar farm is being built.

No info on that page, as expected. Look at:

http://renewables-map.co.uk/details....Solar %20Farm

for more details:

Solar Panels: 50000
Capacity: 40 MW
Acreage: 200

More info:

200 acres = 80.9 hectares = 809,371.284 square metres.

40 MW from 809,371.284 square metres.

40,000,000 / 809,371.284 = 49.42 watts per square metre.

I am aware that this will be the avaerage over day and night, and over the year. I am aware that solar insolation is very variable. But 49 watts per square metre? Can that really be right? Is the 200 acres the site size, or the combined size of all the panels?

I assume I have calculated something wrong. Can any one help?

Thanks in advance,

David Paste.



Background:

A not-particularly-technologically-minded friend was pondering whether or not an electric train covered in PV panels would be viable. I said no, assuming an easy to calculate figure of 10 MW for a Eurostar (wikipedia has values ranging from 3.4 MW to 12.2 MW). I was assuming that the *avaerage* yearly insolation for the UK was 1kW per square metre, garnered from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation

so for 10 MW, you'd need (10,000,000/1,000 = 10,000 square metres = 1 hectare = 2.47 acres of panels for one train.

A rough estimation for BR Class 373 on the Eurostar gives about 1,000 square metres of roof on a 20 car set. Or 1 MW at theoretical maximum. But it won't be, will it. Curved roof, adverse weather, panel efficiency, all of that.

David Paste wrote:

According to:

http://www.fwi.co.uk/business/hampsh...ks-largest.htm

48 MW solar farm is being built.

No info on that page, as expected. Look at:

http://renewables-map.co.uk/details....Solar %20Farm

for more details:

Solar Panels: 50000
Capacity: 40 MW
Acreage: 200

Comparing with one near me

http://www.larkenergy.co.uk/news/2013/04/09/uk%E2%80%99s-largest-solar-farm-puts-wymeswold-on-the-map/

Panels: 130,000
Capacity: 34 MWp
Acreage: c150

Apart from your example clearly using somewhat larger panels, the
figures appear compatible.

What the site you quote has done wrong is failing to follow the
convention that you quote output power as Wp, ie peak output.

A little closer to home, the panels on my roof total 3.64 kWp. If
I divide output to date over total hours, which is not something
I have previously looked at, I get an average over a period of
4.6 years of around 400 W, which is about 11% of peak output.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 14:27:53 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
According to:

http://www.fwi.co.uk/business/hampsh...ks-largest.htm

48 MW solar farm is being built.

No info on that page, as expected. Look at:

http://renewables-map.co.uk/details....Solar %20Farm

for more details:

Solar Panels: 50000
Capacity: 40 MW
Acreage: 200

More info:

200 acres = 80.9 hectares = 809,371.284 square metres.

40 MW from 809,371.284 square metres.

40,000,000 / 809,371.284 = 49.42 watts per square metre.

I am aware that this will be the avaerage over day and night, and over the year. I am aware that solar insolation is very variable. But 49 watts per square metre? Can that really be right? Is the 200 acres the site size, or the combined size of all the panels?

I assume I have calculated something wrong. Can any one help?

Thanks in advance,

David Paste.



Background:

A not-particularly-technologically-minded friend was pondering whether or not an electric train covered in PV panels would be viable. I said no, assuming an easy to calculate figure of 10 MW for a Eurostar (wikipedia has values ranging from 3.4 MW to 12.2 MW). I was assuming that the *avaerage* yearly insolation for the UK was 1kW per square metre, garnered from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation

so for 10 MW, you'd need (10,000,000/1,000 = 10,000 square metres = 1 hectare = 2.47 acres of panels for one train.

A rough estimation for BR Class 373 on the Eurostar gives about 1,000 square metres of roof on a 20 car set. Or 1 MW at theoretical maximum. But it won't be, will it. Curved roof, adverse weather, panel efficiency, all of that.

I know that PV panels are not 100% efficient at converting light into leccy, but I was still staggered to see that 49 watts per square metre was the average figure used for that solar farm.

And so surely I've done something wrong.

Thanks again.

I have a 4Kw setup.
I do an average of 4000Kwh/year.
(West Midlands in almost ideal situation.)

I think the figure you mention refers to the whole area of the solar farm not the actual panels. The rows have to be spaced to avoid shading.
A Kw is usually reckoned to need about 5 square meters of actual panel.
This is the peak output usually written as Kwp.

Efficiency is about 11-14% for silicon panels depending if they are mono crystaline or poly crystaline. (The crystal junctions cause losses.)

Apparently there are more efficient technologies in the pipeline.

Thanks all for the replies.

The amount oelectricity available seems dismally small.

How would simply harvesting the photons to heat water and running a stirling engine compare?

On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 22:38:50 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
Thanks all for the replies.

The amount oelectricity available seems dismally small.

How would simply harvesting the photons to heat water and running a stirling engine compare?

Solar steam is much more efficient than PV.


NT

Chris Hogg wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:38:46 -0700 (PDT), David Paste
wrote:

Thanks all for the replies.

The amount oelectricity available seems dismally small.

Hence the very and depressingly large areas of countryside taken up by
solar farms for only modest return.

If you believe Harry's figures, he has a 4kW array, and estimates you
need ~5m^2 of actual panels per 1kW, i.e. from which you deduce he has
about 20m^2 of panels. He says he gets about 4000kWh/yr, i.e.
4000000/365/24 W =~460 W from 20m^2 of panels, or ~ 23 W/m^2, a lot
better than Bavaria, and even better than California!

Maybe you would prefer my numbers.

I have 14 panels each 260 Wp, and about 1.8 m^2s, giving 25.2 m^2
overall. As I said earlier, averaged over 4.6 years, the output
is 400 W, so that gives around 15.9 W/m^2.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:59:12 +0100, Chris J Dixon wrote:

If you believe Harry's figures, he has a 4kW array, and estimates you
need ~5m^2 of actual panels per 1kW, i.e. from which you deduce he has
about 20m^2 of panels. He says he gets about 4000kWh/yr, i.e.
4000000/365/24 W =~460 W from 20m^2 of panels, or ~ 23 W/m^2, a lot
better than Bavaria, and even better than California!

Maybe you would prefer my numbers.

I have 14 panels each 260 Wp, and about 1.8 m^2s, giving 25.2 m^2
overall. As I said earlier, averaged over 4.6 years, the output is 400
W, so that gives around 15.9 W/m^2.

So Harry claims to get almost 45% more output than you.

On 7/15/2015 5:02 PM, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 14:27:53 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:

I know that PV panels are not 100% efficient at converting light
into leccy, but I was still staggered to see that 49 watts per
square metre was the average figure used for that solar farm.

And so surely I've done something wrong.

Thanks again.

I have a 4Kw setup. I do an average of 4000Kwh/year.

So 456W average.... How many square metres doe you panels cover?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 16/07/2015 04:42, wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 22:38:50 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
Thanks all for the replies.

The amount oelectricity available seems dismally small.

How would simply harvesting the photons to heat water and running a stirling engine compare?

Solar steam is much more efficient than PV.


NT

Probably not by the time you have turned it into electricity.

On 16/07/2015 14:19, newshound wrote:
On 16/07/2015 04:42, wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 22:38:50 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:
Thanks all for the replies.

The amount oelectricity available seems dismally small.

How would simply harvesting the photons to heat water and running a
stirling engine compare?

Solar steam is much more efficient than PV.


NT

Probably not by the time you have turned it into electricity.

Correction, a focussing system generating steam at a few hundred degrees
C could be more efficient, but if you are looking to get a few hundred
watts off a roof-mounted collector you are going to need significantly
more complex technology.

On Thursday, 16 July 2015 13:09:29 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:59:12 +0100, Chris J Dixon wrote:

If you believe Harry's figures, he has a 4kW array, and estimates you
need ~5m^2 of actual panels per 1kW, i.e. from which you deduce he has
about 20m^2 of panels. He says he gets about 4000kWh/yr, i.e.
4000000/365/24 W =~460 W from 20m^2 of panels, or ~ 23 W/m^2, a lot
better than Bavaria, and even better than California!

Maybe you would prefer my numbers.

I have 14 panels each 260 Wp, and about 1.8 m^2s, giving 25.2 m^2
overall. As I said earlier, averaged over 4.6 years, the output is 400
W, so that gives around 15.9 W/m^2.

So Harry claims to get almost 45% more output than you.

He might have added diffuse reflection, who knows.


NT

On Thursday, 16 July 2015 13:43:26 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 7/15/2015 5:02 PM, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 14:27:53 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:

I know that PV panels are not 100% efficient at converting light
into leccy, but I was still staggered to see that 49 watts per
square metre was the average figure used for that solar farm.

And so surely I've done something wrong.

Thanks again.

I have a 4Kw setup. I do an average of 4000Kwh/year.

So 456W average.... How many square metres doe you panels cover?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

About 20.

On Thursday, 16 July 2015 08:49:48 UTC+1, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:38:46 -0700 (PDT), David Paste
wrote:

Thanks all for the replies.

The amount oelectricity available seems dismally small.

Hence the very and depressingly large areas of countryside taken up by
solar farms for only modest return.

If you believe Harry's figures, he has a 4kW array, and estimates you
need ~5m^2 of actual panels per 1kW, i.e. from which you deduce he has
about 20m^2 of panels. He says he gets about 4000kWh/yr, i.e.
4000000/365/24 W =~460 W from 20m^2 of panels, or ~ 23 W/m^2, a lot
better than Bavaria, and even better than California!

Bollix.
If I were in California,I would be doing 40% more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_...#Photovoltaics

On Thursday, 16 July 2015 13:09:29 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:59:12 +0100, Chris J Dixon wrote:

If you believe Harry's figures, he has a 4kW array, and estimates you
need ~5m^2 of actual panels per 1kW, i.e. from which you deduce he has
about 20m^2 of panels. He says he gets about 4000kWh/yr, i.e.
4000000/365/24 W =~460 W from 20m^2 of panels, or ~ 23 W/m^2, a lot
better than Bavaria, and even better than California!

Maybe you would prefer my numbers.

I have 14 panels each 260 Wp, and about 1.8 m^2s, giving 25.2 m^2
overall. As I said earlier, averaged over 4.6 years, the output is 400
W, so that gives around 15.9 W/m^2.

So Harry claims to get almost 45% more output than you.

All depends on azimuth, roof angle and shading.
My installation is near perfect in all these respects.
The house was purchased with this in mind.
The installation is almost three and a half years old and will have paid for itself in five years.

On 7/16/2015 1:09 PM, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:59:12 +0100, Chris J Dixon wrote:

If you believe Harry's figures, he has a 4kW array, and estimates you
need ~5m^2 of actual panels per 1kW, i.e. from which you deduce he has
about 20m^2 of panels. He says he gets about 4000kWh/yr, i.e.
4000000/365/24 W =~460 W from 20m^2 of panels, or ~ 23 W/m^2, a lot
better than Bavaria, and even better than California!

Maybe you would prefer my numbers.

I have 14 panels each 260 Wp, and about 1.8 m^2s, giving 25.2 m^2
overall. As I said earlier, averaged over 4.6 years, the output is 400
W, so that gives around 15.9 W/m^2.

So Harry claims to get almost 45% more output than you.

Harry's figures suggest a year round average of just under 460W - so
hardly 45%. However he has not said what panel area he has.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 17/07/2015 10:18, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:

On Thursday, 16 July 2015 13:09:29 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:59:12 +0100, Chris J Dixon wrote:

If you believe Harry's figures, he has a 4kW array, and estimates you
need ~5m^2 of actual panels per 1kW, i.e. from which you deduce he has
about 20m^2 of panels. He says he gets about 4000kWh/yr, i.e.
4000000/365/24 W =~460 W from 20m^2 of panels, or ~ 23 W/m^2, a lot
better than Bavaria, and even better than California!

Maybe you would prefer my numbers.
I have 14 panels each 260 Wp, and about 1.8 m^2s, giving 25.2 m^2
overall. As I said earlier, averaged over 4.6 years, the output is 400
W, so that gives around 15.9 W/m^2.

So Harry claims to get almost 45% more output than you.

All depends on azimuth, roof angle and shading.
My installation is near perfect in all these respects.
The house was purchased with this in mind.
The installation is almost three and a half years old and will have
paid for itself in five years.

Only because you are indulging in legalised banditry on the rest of us.

Well said!

On Friday, 17 July 2015 11:36:26 UTC+1, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 23:56:16 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Thursday, 16 July 2015 08:49:48 UTC+1, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:38:46 -0700 (PDT), David Paste
wrote:

Thanks all for the replies.

The amount oelectricity available seems dismally small.

Hence the very and depressingly large areas of countryside taken up by
solar farms for only modest return.

If you believe Harry's figures, he has a 4kW array, and estimates you
need ~5m^2 of actual panels per 1kW, i.e. from which you deduce he has
about 20m^2 of panels. He says he gets about 4000kWh/yr, i.e.
4000000/365/24 W =~460 W from 20m^2 of panels, or ~ 23 W/m^2, a lot
better than Bavaria, and even better than California!

Bollix.
If I were in California,I would be doing 40% more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_...#Photovoltaics

Your link says almost nothing about W/m^2 of photovoltaics in
California. Plenty on installed capacity of solar farms, but nothing
on area. As usual, you give an irrelevant link that you've not even
read.

The California Valley Solar Ranch* produces about 62.5MW. It covers an
area of 1966 acres, giving an average of ~7.9 W/m^2 if my maths is
correct (62500000/1966/4047). Even allowing a factor of two or even
three for the area quoted being a total acreage and not actual panel
area (i.e. 1966 acres of total area might only be 983 or even 655
acres of actual panel area), it still makes your claims look a trifle
optimistic, especially as California gets twice the intensity of
sunshine that the south of England gets (204 W/m^2 for San Francisco
cf. 109 W/m^2 for London)**.

* http://tinyurl.com/og44voq
** http://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_46.shtml

--

Chris

Tch.
A 4KWp array is a 4Kwp array anywhere in the world and will be the same area (if the same technology)
Some places have more or brighter sunshine eg California.
However, it's also hotter (reduces efficiency) and dustier.

I don't give a *** for your calculations, I am giving you actual meter readings.

You can find insolation maps on the internet if you want to get some idea of PV panel performance.
(Doesn't allow for snow covering the panels.

On 7/17/2015 7:39 AM, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 16 July 2015 13:43:26 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 7/15/2015 5:02 PM, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 14:27:53 UTC+1, David Paste wrote:

I know that PV panels are not 100% efficient at converting light
into leccy, but I was still staggered to see that 49 watts per
square metre was the average figure used for that solar farm.

And so surely I've done something wrong.

Thanks again.

I have a 4Kw setup. I do an average of 4000Kwh/year.

So 456W average.... How many square metres doe you panels cover?

About 20.

So ~23 W/m^2



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Friday, 17 July 2015 10:18:28 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article 45398ca9-e8e3-499a-bf62-

All depends on azimuth, roof angle and shading.
My installation is near perfect in all these respects.
The house was purchased with this in mind.
The installation is almost three and a half years old and will have paid for itself in five years.

Only because you are indulging in legalised banditry on the rest of us.

Ah. Another whinging socialist.

On 18/07/2015 07:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 17 July 2015 10:18:28 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article 45398ca9-e8e3-499a-bf62-

All depends on azimuth, roof angle and shading.
My installation is near perfect in all these respects.
The house was purchased with this in mind.
The installation is almost three and a half years old and will have paid for itself in five years.

Only because you are indulging in legalised banditry on the rest of us.

Ah. Another whinging socialist.


Would you have fitted panels if they didn't make you a large profit?
Obviously someone that cared about the environment and believed AGW was
a threat would have.

You aren't honest enough to admit you did it for the cash and sod all
else. Its why I installed cavity wall insulation 30 years ago as it
saved cash not because it saved the planet.

On Saturday, 18 July 2015 13:19:11 UTC+1, dennis @ home wrote:
On 18/07/2015 07:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 17 July 2015 10:18:28 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article 45398ca9-e8e3-499a-bf62-

All depends on azimuth, roof angle and shading.
My installation is near perfect in all these respects.
The house was purchased with this in mind.
The installation is almost three and a half years old and will have paid for itself in five years.

Only because you are indulging in legalised banditry on the rest of us.

Ah. Another whinging socialist.


Would you have fitted panels if they didn't make you a large profit?
Obviously someone that cared about the environment and believed AGW was
a threat would have.

You aren't honest enough to admit you did it for the cash and sod all
else. Its why I installed cavity wall insulation 30 years ago as it
saved cash not because it saved the planet.

Both.
Renewable energy is the sensible way to go.
Only the brain dead can'tseethis.

On Saturday, 18 July 2015 09:18:39 UTC+1, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 09:06:56 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Friday, 17 July 2015 11:36:26 UTC+1, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 23:56:16 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Thursday, 16 July 2015 08:49:48 UTC+1, Chris Hogg wrote:

If you believe Harry's figures, he has a 4kW array, and estimates you
need ~5m^2 of actual panels per 1kW, i.e. from which you deduce he has
about 20m^2 of panels. He says he gets about 4000kWh/yr, i.e.
4000000/365/24 W =~460 W from 20m^2 of panels, or ~ 23 W/m^2, a lot
better than Bavaria, and even better than California!

Bollix.
If I were in California,I would be doing 40% more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_...#Photovoltaics

Your link says almost nothing about W/m^2 of photovoltaics in
California. Plenty on installed capacity of solar farms, but nothing
on area. As usual, you give an irrelevant link that you've not even
read.

The California Valley Solar Ranch* produces about 62.5MW. It covers an
area of 1966 acres, giving an average of ~7.9 W/m^2 if my maths is
correct (62500000/1966/4047). Even allowing a factor of two or even
three for the area quoted being a total acreage and not actual panel
area (i.e. 1966 acres of total area might only be 983 or even 655
acres of actual panel area), it still makes your claims look a trifle
optimistic, especially as California gets twice the intensity of
sunshine that the south of England gets (204 W/m^2 for San Francisco
cf. 109 W/m^2 for London)**.

* http://tinyurl.com/og44voq
** http://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_46.shtml

--

Chris

Tch.
A 4KWp array is a 4Kwp array anywhere in the world and will be the same area (if the same technology)

Well, yes, obviously. But we were not talking peak figures, but
averages over a year.

Some places have more or brighter sunshine eg California.
However, it's also hotter (reduces efficiency) and dustier.

I don't give a *** for your calculations, I am giving you actual meter readings.

You can find insolation maps on the internet if you want to get some idea of PV panel performance.
(Doesn't allow for snow covering the panels.

That's all very well, but it still doesn't explain why your panels
seem to be able to produce more power on average than big commercial
operations in a much sunnier place such as California. Two
explanations come to mind.

The first is that like is not being compared with like, and figures
given for the big farms are based on acreage of the site rather than
specifically the area of the panels alone. I think that's a real
possibility.

The second is that your panels have better than average efficiency.
From the figures you have given here and elsewhere, each of your
panels is 1m^2 and produces 200Wp*. That's better than any listed in
the table here http://tinyurl.com/ohwokko, which may not be
up-to-date. What particular panels do you have installed?

*20 panels, output 4kWp, 20m^2, 1kWp per 5m^2, hence each panel is
1m^2 and produces 200Wp.

There's 21 panels rated at 185 watts peak each.
They are polycrystaline.
The efficiency is 11%.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 18 July 2015 13:19:11 UTC+1, dennis @ home wrote:
On 18/07/2015 07:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 17 July 2015 10:18:28 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article 45398ca9-e8e3-499a-bf62-

All depends on azimuth, roof angle and shading.
My installation is near perfect in all these respects.
The house was purchased with this in mind.
The installation is almost three and a half years old and will have
paid for itself in five years.

Only because you are indulging in legalised banditry on the rest of
us.

Ah. Another whinging socialist.


Would you have fitted panels if they didn't make you a large profit?
Obviously someone that cared about the environment and believed AGW was
a threat would have.

You aren't honest enough to admit you did it for the cash and sod all
else. Its why I installed cavity wall insulation 30 years ago as it
saved cash not because it saved the planet.

Both.
Renewable energy is the sensible way to go.

Nope, not for heating.

Only the brain dead can'tseethis.

Only the brain dead can't see that the cost of
renewable energy makes it unviable for heating.

On 19/07/2015 10:08, Rod Speed wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 18 July 2015 13:19:11 UTC+1, dennis @ home wrote:
On 18/07/2015 07:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 17 July 2015 10:18:28 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article 45398ca9-e8e3-499a-bf62-

All depends on azimuth, roof angle and shading.
My installation is near perfect in all these respects.
The house was purchased with this in mind.
The installation is almost three and a half years old and will
have paid for itself in five years.

Only because you are indulging in legalised banditry on the rest
of us.

Ah. Another whinging socialist.


Would you have fitted panels if they didn't make you a large profit?
Obviously someone that cared about the environment and believed AGW was
a threat would have.

You aren't honest enough to admit you did it for the cash and sod all
else. Its why I installed cavity wall insulation 30 years ago as it
saved cash not because it saved the planet.

Both.
Renewable energy is the sensible way to go.

Nope, not for heating.

Only the brain dead can'tseethis.

Only the brain dead can't see that the cost of
renewable energy makes it unviable for heating.

Direct solar for DHW might make sense, particularly if no mains gas and
on well insulated new build.

On Sunday, 19 July 2015 10:08:40 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 18 July 2015 13:19:11 UTC+1, dennis @ home wrote:
On 18/07/2015 07:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 17 July 2015 10:18:28 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article 45398ca9-e8e3-499a-bf62-

All depends on azimuth, roof angle and shading.
My installation is near perfect in all these respects.
The house was purchased with this in mind.
The installation is almost three and a half years old and will have
paid for itself in five years.

Only because you are indulging in legalised banditry on the rest of
us.

Ah. Another whinging socialist.


Would you have fitted panels if they didn't make you a large profit?
Obviously someone that cared about the environment and believed AGW was
a threat would have.

You aren't honest enough to admit you did it for the cash and sod all
else. Its why I installed cavity wall insulation 30 years ago as it
saved cash not because it saved the planet.

Both.
Renewable energy is the sensible way to go.

Nope, not for heating.

Only the brain dead can'tseethis.

Only the brain dead can't see that the cost of
renewable energy makes it unviable for heating.

99% of heating (as in conventional houses) is unneccesary.

On Sunday, 19 July 2015 18:21:40 UTC+1, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:18:24 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:


I have no objection to people doing what Harry has done, insulating
their houses to the extreme, using solar panels to supplement existing
grid electricity or hot water, driving electric cars and wearing
thermal underwear and thick pullovers. If it cuts down on their fuel
bills and they think they're saving the planet, it's OK by me, whether
they're right or wrong on the latter. But I do object to the rest of
us having to pay for their indulgence. The sooner the govt. withdraws
subsidies, the better.

All energy sources are subsidised in the UK.
Renewables less so than most others.

On Sunday, 19 July 2015 18:22:29 UTC+1, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:41:20 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Saturday, 18 July 2015 09:18:39 UTC+1, Chris Hogg wrote:

That's all very well, but it still doesn't explain why your panels
seem to be able to produce more power on average than big commercial
operations in a much sunnier place such as California. Two
explanations come to mind.

The first is that like is not being compared with like, and figures
given for the big farms are based on acreage of the site rather than
specifically the area of the panels alone. I think that's a real
possibility.

The second is that your panels have better than average efficiency.
From the figures you have given here and elsewhere, each of your
panels is 1m^2 and produces 200Wp*. That's better than any listed in
the table here http://tinyurl.com/ohwokko, which may not be
up-to-date. What particular panels do you have installed?

*20 panels, output 4kWp, 20m^2, 1kWp per 5m^2, hence each panel is
1m^2 and produces 200Wp.

There's 21 panels rated at 185 watts peak each.
They are polycrystaline.
The efficiency is 11%.

Thank you for that. But not 20 panels as you said earlier, and not
4kWp either, more like 3.885kWp to be pedantically precise. But still
nothing on their area. Who made them? As your electric car is a
Mitsubishi, I wondered if you had Mitsubishi panels, but AFAICT all
their 185Wp panels have areas greater than 1m^2 (typically 1.3 - 1.4
m^2) and have higher efficiencies at 13-14%. All the panels that I can
find that have an area of ~1m^2, not just Mitsubishi's, have peak
outputs less than 185W. If you don't know the exact size, tell me who
made them and I can probably look them up.

--

Chris

They are Mitsubishi panels. Model TD185MF5_

No longer imported. Dunno why.

They do more annual power than was calculated in the quotation which was 3187.8Kwh Even on a "bad" year.

I think we are in the rain shadow of the Malvern Hills and the quotation is for average conditions. Also, we are on a hilltop (increases day length and diffused light.)
Max daily energy generated 30Kwh (Two occasions only in over four years)

My second array has Norwegian panels and is 16 x 250w.
(Less than a year old)

We export more electricity than we use.
Plus zero fuel costs with electric car in Summer.

I would get more but the local transformer isn't up to it.
Quoted £6000 to change it. So, not viable.

Most of my immediate neighbours have PV panels as well.

On Sunday, 19 July 2015 18:32:37 UTC+1, harry wrote:

99% of heating (as in conventional houses) is unneccesary.

There are 2 problems with superinsulation that I can see.
First is the space it takes. OK for a big detached house, quite impractical for an old terrace.
The other is the cost. Insulation can be cheap, but space saving insulation inspected & certified by government bodies is not.


NT

In article ,
harry scribeth thus
On Sunday, 19 July 2015 10:08:40 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 18 July 2015 13:19:11 UTC+1, dennis @ home wrote:
On 18/07/2015 07:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 17 July 2015 10:18:28 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article 45398ca9-e8e3-499a-bf62-

All depends on azimuth, roof angle and shading.
My installation is near perfect in all these respects.
The house was purchased with this in mind.
The installation is almost three and a half years old and will have
paid for itself in five years.

Only because you are indulging in legalised banditry on the rest of
us.

Ah. Another whinging socialist.


Would you have fitted panels if they didn't make you a large profit?
Obviously someone that cared about the environment and believed AGW was
a threat would have.

You aren't honest enough to admit you did it for the cash and sod all
else. Its why I installed cavity wall insulation 30 years ago as it
saved cash not because it saved the planet.

Both.
Renewable energy is the sensible way to go.

Nope, not for heating.

Only the brain dead can'tseethis.

Only the brain dead can't see that the cost of
renewable energy makes it unviable for heating.

99% of heating (as in conventional houses) is unneccesary.


Harry.. When will you take on board that its bloody impossible to
insulate any existing houses like that egg box one you live in.

Modern rooms are small enough as it is without half a yard of Celotex as
desirable as its properties might be!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
harry scribeth thus
On Sunday, 19 July 2015 18:21:40 UTC+1, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:18:24 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:


I have no objection to people doing what Harry has done, insulating
their houses to the extreme, using solar panels to supplement existing
grid electricity or hot water, driving electric cars and wearing
thermal underwear and thick pullovers. If it cuts down on their fuel
bills and they think they're saving the planet, it's OK by me, whether
they're right or wrong on the latter. But I do object to the rest of
us having to pay for their indulgence. The sooner the govt. withdraws
subsidies, the better.

All energy sources are subsidised in the UK.
Renewables less so than most others.

Prove it...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
harry scribeth thus
On Sunday, 19 July 2015 18:22:29 UTC+1, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:41:20 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Saturday, 18 July 2015 09:18:39 UTC+1, Chris Hogg wrote:

That's all very well, but it still doesn't explain why your panels
seem to be able to produce more power on average than big commercial
operations in a much sunnier place such as California. Two
explanations come to mind.

The first is that like is not being compared with like, and figures
given for the big farms are based on acreage of the site rather than
specifically the area of the panels alone. I think that's a real
possibility.

The second is that your panels have better than average efficiency.
From the figures you have given here and elsewhere, each of your
panels is 1m^2 and produces 200Wp*. That's better than any listed in
the table here http://tinyurl.com/ohwokko, which may not be
up-to-date. What particular panels do you have installed?

*20 panels, output 4kWp, 20m^2, 1kWp per 5m^2, hence each panel is
1m^2 and produces 200Wp.

There's 21 panels rated at 185 watts peak each.
They are polycrystaline.
The efficiency is 11%.

Thank you for that. But not 20 panels as you said earlier, and not
4kWp either, more like 3.885kWp to be pedantically precise. But still
nothing on their area. Who made them? As your electric car is a
Mitsubishi, I wondered if you had Mitsubishi panels, but AFAICT all
their 185Wp panels have areas greater than 1m^2 (typically 1.3 - 1.4
m^2) and have higher efficiencies at 13-14%. All the panels that I can
find that have an area of ~1m^2, not just Mitsubishi's, have peak
outputs less than 185W. If you don't know the exact size, tell me who
made them and I can probably look them up.

--

Chris

They are Mitsubishi panels. Model TD185MF5_

No longer imported. Dunno why.

They do more annual power than was calculated in the quotation which was
3187.8Kwh Even on a "bad" year.

I think we are in the rain shadow of the Malvern Hills and the quotation is for
average conditions. Also, we are on a hilltop (increases day length and diffused
light.)
Max daily energy generated 30Kwh (Two occasions only in over four years)

My second array has Norwegian panels and is 16 x 250w.
(Less than a year old)

We export more electricity than we use.
Plus zero fuel costs with electric car in Summer.

I would get more but the local transformer isn't up to it.

Really, what sort of amperage are they putting out?...

Quoted £6000 to change it. So, not viable.

Most of my immediate neighbours have PV panels as well.

--
Tony Sayer

On 19/07/2015 21:50, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus
On Sunday, 19 July 2015 10:08:40 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 18 July 2015 13:19:11 UTC+1, dennis @ home wrote:
On 18/07/2015 07:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 17 July 2015 10:18:28 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article 45398ca9-e8e3-499a-bf62-

All depends on azimuth, roof angle and shading.
My installation is near perfect in all these respects.
The house was purchased with this in mind.
The installation is almost three and a half years old and will have
paid for itself in five years.

Only because you are indulging in legalised banditry on the rest of
us.

Ah. Another whinging socialist.


Would you have fitted panels if they didn't make you a large profit?
Obviously someone that cared about the environment and believed AGW was
a threat would have.

You aren't honest enough to admit you did it for the cash and sod all
else. Its why I installed cavity wall insulation 30 years ago as it
saved cash not because it saved the planet.

Both.
Renewable energy is the sensible way to go.

Nope, not for heating.

Only the brain dead can'tseethis.

Only the brain dead can't see that the cost of
renewable energy makes it unviable for heating.

99% of heating (as in conventional houses) is unneccesary.


Harry.. When will you take on board that its bloody impossible to
insulate any existing houses like that egg box one you live in.

Modern rooms are small enough as it is without half a yard of Celotex as
desirable as its properties might be!...


Its pointless fitting as much insulation as harry..

say 50% of the heat goes through the walls, an inch of cellotex will
reduce that to about 5%, 2 inch to 2.5%, 4 inch to 1.25% so as you see
adding another 30 inches is going to save you about 1%. The required
changes in air will use about ten times as much energy so fitting a heat
exchanger will save more and take up less space.

On Sunday, 19 July 2015 22:07:47 UTC+1, dennis @ home wrote:
On 19/07/2015 21:50, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus

99% of heating (as in conventional houses) is unneccesary.


Harry.. When will you take on board that its bloody impossible to
insulate any existing houses like that egg box one you live in.

Modern rooms are small enough as it is without half a yard of Celotex as
desirable as its properties might be!...


Its pointless fitting as much insulation as harry..

say 50% of the heat goes through the walls, an inch of cellotex will
reduce that to about 5%, 2 inch to 2.5%, 4 inch to 1.25% so as you see
adding another 30 inches is going to save you about 1%. The required
changes in air will use about ten times as much energy so fitting a heat
exchanger will save more and take up less space.

Cavity wall 0.53, inch of kingspan 1.0


NT

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 19/07/2015 10:08, Rod Speed wrote:


"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 18 July 2015 13:19:11 UTC+1, dennis @ home wrote:
On 18/07/2015 07:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 17 July 2015 10:18:28 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article 45398ca9-e8e3-499a-bf62-

All depends on azimuth, roof angle and shading.
My installation is near perfect in all these respects.
The house was purchased with this in mind.
The installation is almost three and a half years old and will
have paid for itself in five years.

Only because you are indulging in legalised banditry on the rest
of us.

Ah. Another whinging socialist.


Would you have fitted panels if they didn't make you a large profit?
Obviously someone that cared about the environment and believed AGW was
a threat would have.

You aren't honest enough to admit you did it for the cash and sod all
else. Its why I installed cavity wall insulation 30 years ago as it
saved cash not because it saved the planet.

Both.
Renewable energy is the sensible way to go.

Nope, not for heating.

Only the brain dead can'tseethis.

Only the brain dead can't see that the cost of
renewable energy makes it unviable for heating.

Direct solar for DHW might make sense,

It doesn’t in Britain.

particularly if no mains gas and on well insulated new build.

Electricity makes a lot more sense for DHW, because its ideal
for storage hot water because it evens out the load on the
coal fired power stations and makes them run more efficiently.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 19 July 2015 10:08:40 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 18 July 2015 13:19:11 UTC+1, dennis @ home wrote:
On 18/07/2015 07:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 17 July 2015 10:18:28 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article 45398ca9-e8e3-499a-bf62-

All depends on azimuth, roof angle and shading.
My installation is near perfect in all these respects.
The house was purchased with this in mind.
The installation is almost three and a half years old and will
have
paid for itself in five years.

Only because you are indulging in legalised banditry on the rest of
us.

Ah. Another whinging socialist.


Would you have fitted panels if they didn't make you a large profit?
Obviously someone that cared about the environment and believed AGW
was
a threat would have.

You aren't honest enough to admit you did it for the cash and sod all
else. Its why I installed cavity wall insulation 30 years ago as it
saved cash not because it saved the planet.

Both.
Renewable energy is the sensible way to go.

Nope, not for heating.

Only the brain dead can'tseethis.

Only the brain dead can't see that the cost of
renewable energy makes it unviable for heating.

99% of heating (as in conventional houses) is unneccesary.

That number is straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell.

Yes, I no longer heat anything but myself in winter, use on of those
electric throws that is basically an electric blanket that I use on the
armchair that I do almost everything from now except cooking.

And when you want more portability, there are plenty of
electrically heated pants and jackets intended for motorbike
riders and those who have to work outside in winter too.

But it makes a lot more sense to be using nuke for power
generation and heating house with the electricity from those.

And don't try running that stupid lie that no one knows
how to deal with the waste from those, we have known
how to do that ever since breeders were invented.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 19 July 2015 18:21:40 UTC+1, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:18:24 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:


I have no objection to people doing what Harry has done, insulating
their houses to the extreme, using solar panels to supplement existing
grid electricity or hot water, driving electric cars and wearing
thermal underwear and thick pullovers. If it cuts down on their fuel
bills and they think they're saving the planet, it's OK by me, whether
they're right or wrong on the latter. But I do object to the rest of
us having to pay for their indulgence. The sooner the govt. withdraws
subsidies, the better.

All energy sources are subsidised in the UK.

That's a lie with mains power.

Renewables less so than most others.

And that is a bare faced lie.

wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 19 July 2015 18:32:37 UTC+1, harry wrote:

99% of heating (as in conventional houses) is unneccesary.

There are 2 problems with superinsulation that I can see.
First is the space it takes. OK for a big detached house, quite
impractical for an old terrace.
The other is the cost. Insulation can be cheap,

Not often with any but a new build.

but space saving insulation inspected & certified by government bodies is
not.

But the inspection and certification is only needed if you want the govt
to pay for it and it doesn't need to be space saving on a new build.

The main problem with super insulation is that few are keen on 'living'
all the time in a super insulated box and its ****ing expensive to have
some way of only having the super insulation in place when it will do
something useful.

On Sunday, 19 July 2015 21:54:11 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus
On Sunday, 19 July 2015 10:08:40 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 18 July 2015 13:19:11 UTC+1, dennis @ home wrote:
On 18/07/2015 07:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 17 July 2015 10:18:28 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article 45398ca9-e8e3-499a-bf62-

All depends on azimuth, roof angle and shading.
My installation is near perfect in all these respects.
The house was purchased with this in mind.
The installation is almost three and a half years old and will have
paid for itself in five years.

Only because you are indulging in legalised banditry on the rest of
us.

Ah. Another whinging socialist.


Would you have fitted panels if they didn't make you a large profit?
Obviously someone that cared about the environment and believed AGW was
a threat would have.

You aren't honest enough to admit you did it for the cash and sod all
else. Its why I installed cavity wall insulation 30 years ago as it
saved cash not because it saved the planet.

Both.
Renewable energy is the sensible way to go.

Nope, not for heating.

Only the brain dead can'tseethis.

Only the brain dead can't see that the cost of
renewable energy makes it unviable for heating.

99% of heating (as in conventional houses) is unneccesary.


Harry.. When will you take on board that its bloody impossible to
insulate any existing houses like that egg box one you live in.

Modern rooms are small enough as it is without half a yard of Celotex as
desirable as its properties might be!...
--
Tony Sayer

Well **** fer brains, this was an existing house and the insulation was applied externally.
So no change to room sizes.

On Sunday, 19 July 2015 22:07:47 UTC+1, dennis @ home wrote:
On 19/07/2015 21:50, tony sayer wrote:
In article ,
harry scribeth thus
On Sunday, 19 July 2015 10:08:40 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 18 July 2015 13:19:11 UTC+1, dennis @ home wrote:
On 18/07/2015 07:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 17 July 2015 10:18:28 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article 45398ca9-e8e3-499a-bf62-

All depends on azimuth, roof angle and shading.
My installation is near perfect in all these respects.
The house was purchased with this in mind.
The installation is almost three and a half years old and will have
paid for itself in five years.

Only because you are indulging in legalised banditry on the rest of
us.

Ah. Another whinging socialist.


Would you have fitted panels if they didn't make you a large profit?
Obviously someone that cared about the environment and believed AGW was
a threat would have.

You aren't honest enough to admit you did it for the cash and sod all
else. Its why I installed cavity wall insulation 30 years ago as it
saved cash not because it saved the planet.

Both.
Renewable energy is the sensible way to go.

Nope, not for heating.

Only the brain dead can'tseethis.

Only the brain dead can't see that the cost of
renewable energy makes it unviable for heating.

99% of heating (as in conventional houses) is unneccesary.


Harry.. When will you take on board that its bloody impossible to
insulate any existing houses like that egg box one you live in.

Modern rooms are small enough as it is without half a yard of Celotex as
desirable as its properties might be!...


Its pointless fitting as much insulation as harry..

say 50% of the heat goes through the walls, an inch of cellotex will
reduce that to about 5%, 2 inch to 2.5%, 4 inch to 1.25% so as you see
adding another 30 inches is going to save you about 1%. The required
changes in air will use about ten times as much energy so fitting a heat
exchanger will save more and take up less space.

Drivel.
Also whole house ventilation is a waste of space.

On Sunday, 19 July 2015 21:54:11 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
In article 8241852e-62f7-4e8a-a550-

They are Mitsubishi panels. Model TD185MF5_

No longer imported. Dunno why.

They do more annual power than was calculated in the quotation which was
3187.8Kwh Even on a "bad" year.

I think we are in the rain shadow of the Malvern Hills and the quotation is for
average conditions. Also, we are on a hilltop (increases day length and diffused
light.)
Max daily energy generated 30Kwh (Two occasions only in over four years)

My second array has Norwegian panels and is 16 x 250w.
(Less than a year old)

We export more electricity than we use.
Plus zero fuel costs with electric car in Summer.

I would get more but the local transformer isn't up to it.

Really, what sort of amperage are they putting out?...

It's a pole transformer, 25Kva ISTR
The issue is not the transprmers' capacity, it's the rise in local voltage caused when the panels are at full output and nobody locally is using any electricity.
Made worse by other people nearby having PV as well (not on same transformer)