Why don't the government give an increased FIT for East/West array?

This would significantly smooth out the solar peak and encourage a much
greater up-take by the large percentage of folks who don't have an
optimal SE through SW facing roof.

People moan about the cost of FIT being borne by the rest of the
population but surely it's better keeping payments to UK residents
rather than the next generation of foreign investors e.g. China-land
who's building Hinkly C reactor?

Obviously still need an "on/off solution for night and cloudy days but a
smoother solar PV curve from encouraging East/West panels seems to make
sense to me..

On Monday, 28 September 2015 15:31:42 UTC+1, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:
Why don't the government give an increased FIT for East/West array?

This would significantly smooth out the solar peak and encourage a much
greater up-take by the large percentage of folks who don't have an
optimal SE through SW facing roof.

People moan about the cost of FIT being borne by the rest of the
population but surely it's better keeping payments to UK residents
rather than the next generation of foreign investors e.g. China-land
who's building Hinkly C reactor?

Obviously still need an "on/off solution for night and cloudy days but a
smoother solar PV curve from encouraging East/West panels seems to make
sense to me..

I think they already do this in Germany where there is more solar power than we have.

I have a neighbour with a N/S orientated house.
They have panels on both sides of the roof.
The main benefit is that they save even more electricity as the distribution curve is over a longer period.

On 28/09/15 15:31, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:
Why don't the government give an increased FIT for East/West array?

Even the greens haven't yet advocated throwing good money after bad to
THAT extent.



--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

On Monday, 28 September 2015 15:31:42 UTC+1, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:
Why don't the government give an increased FIT for East/West array?

This would significantly smooth out the solar peak and encourage a much
greater up-take by the large percentage of folks who don't have an
optimal SE through SW facing roof.

People moan about the cost of FIT being borne by the rest of the
population but surely it's better keeping payments to UK residents
rather than the next generation of foreign investors e.g. China-land
who's building Hinkly C reactor?

Obviously still need an "on/off solution for night and cloudy days but a
smoother solar PV curve from encouraging East/West panels seems to make
sense to me..

A lot of things seem to make sense until you look at the numbers


NT

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:35:07 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:42:18 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , www.GymRatZ.co.uk
wrote:

Why don't the government give an increased FIT for East/West array?

Why don't the government scrap all FIT, is a much more sensible
question. We're far too far north to be fiddling with solar.

And as Harry keeps telling us, like wind energy, solar energy is free,
so why does it need FIT in the first place?

Daylight robbery, metaphorically and literally!

+1

If I had the spare cash, I might like my own solar / battery system
and I wouldn't mind getting paid something comparable to what the main
power generators get for any 'surplus' I may have.

Anything like that should be good enough to stand on it's own two feet
AFAIC (unless someone can explain why it shouldn't).

And none of the above is to do with ecology. ;-)

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:44:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, 28 September 2015 15:31:42 UTC+1, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:
Why don't the government give an increased FIT for East/West array?

This would significantly smooth out the solar peak and encourage a much
greater up-take by the large percentage of folks who don't have an
optimal SE through SW facing roof.

People moan about the cost of FIT being borne by the rest of the
population but surely it's better keeping payments to UK residents
rather than the next generation of foreign investors e.g. China-land
who's building Hinkly C reactor?

Obviously still need an "on/off solution for night and cloudy days but a
smoother solar PV curve from encouraging East/West panels seems to make
sense to me..

A lot of things seem to make sense until you look at the numbers

A neighbour has a fairly large South facing solar array on his roof
and in the peak of the summer he was close to matching his 3 year bank
loan monthly payments with his electricity savings and FIT payments
(he doesn't speak much about the whole thing since I explained I was
subsidising his project). ;-)

I'll be interested to learn what his numbers are like over the next
few months.

Cheers, T i m

On Monday, 28 September 2015 23:19:13 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:44:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, 28 September 2015 15:31:42 UTC+1, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:
Why don't the government give an increased FIT for East/West array?

This would significantly smooth out the solar peak and encourage a much
greater up-take by the large percentage of folks who don't have an
optimal SE through SW facing roof.

People moan about the cost of FIT being borne by the rest of the
population but surely it's better keeping payments to UK residents
rather than the next generation of foreign investors e.g. China-land
who's building Hinkly C reactor?

Obviously still need an "on/off solution for night and cloudy days but a
smoother solar PV curve from encouraging East/West panels seems to make
sense to me..

A lot of things seem to make sense until you look at the numbers

A neighbour has a fairly large South facing solar array on his roof
and in the peak of the summer he was close to matching his 3 year bank
loan monthly payments with his electricity savings and FIT payments
(he doesn't speak much about the whole thing since I explained I was
subsidising his project). ;-)

I'll be interested to learn what his numbers are like over the next
few months.

Cheers, T i m

You are full of ****.
You are subsidising all forms of fossil fuel generated electricity to a far greater level.

And nuclear even more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...ting_costs.png

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 28 September 2015 23:19:13 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:44:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, 28 September 2015 15:31:42 UTC+1, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:
Why don't the government give an increased FIT for East/West array?

This would significantly smooth out the solar peak and encourage a
much
greater up-take by the large percentage of folks who don't have an
optimal SE through SW facing roof.

People moan about the cost of FIT being borne by the rest of the
population but surely it's better keeping payments to UK residents
rather than the next generation of foreign investors e.g. China-land
who's building Hinkly C reactor?

Obviously still need an "on/off solution for night and cloudy days but
a
smoother solar PV curve from encouraging East/West panels seems to
make
sense to me..

A lot of things seem to make sense until you look at the numbers

A neighbour has a fairly large South facing solar array on his roof
and in the peak of the summer he was close to matching his 3 year bank
loan monthly payments with his electricity savings and FIT payments
(he doesn't speak much about the whole thing since I explained I was
subsidising his project). ;-)

I'll be interested to learn what his numbers are like over the next
few months.

You are full of ****.

We'll see...

You are subsidising all forms of fossil fuel
generated electricity to a far greater level.

Nope, just paying what it costs.

And nuclear even more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...ting_costs.png

That's not a subsidy either.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:30:30 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

snip

So on average, solar and wind get subsidised to the extent of about
$24 per MWh, some fifteen times the subsidy given to nuclear,
fifty-four times that given to ordinary coal, and ninety-five times
that given to natural gas.

snip

So it seems if you have the facts and the ability to understand them,
'You can manage what you can measure' wins out again. ;-)

If someone *wants* solar, given it's inability to generate energy when
it's dark ... (when we still have to rely on other sources) then good
for them. I still don't want to be forced into subsidising anyone's
personal projects, especially ones that are questionable (FIT /
function at this latitude / suitability to our needs etc).

Now, if you lived in California and used solar during the day to run
your aircon, *and* did so off your own back then good for you. ;-)

We are all doing our bit by spending *our* money on more energy
efficient devices (lamps etc) that will in turn reduce the real-world
load on the system so they can make better use of the generation plant
they already have. No one is subsidising my LED lamps. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 10:57:33 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

If someone *wants* solar, given it's inability to generate energy when
it's dark ... (when we still have to rely on other sources) then good

Solar power is already generating electricity after sunset via thermal storage. It's solar PV that can't.


NT

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 04:50:34 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 10:57:33 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

If someone *wants* solar, given it's inability to generate energy when
it's dark ... (when we still have to rely on other sources) then good

Solar power is already generating electricity after sunset via thermal storage.

Is that as efficient as the direct use of the energy though (albeit
useful that it can do that etc)?

It's solar PV that can't.

Which is what we were talking about of course. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 16:27:20 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
nt:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 10:57:33 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

If someone *wants* solar, given it's inability to generate energy when
it's dark ... (when we still have to rely on other sources) then good

Solar power is already generating electricity after sunset via thermal storage.

Is that as efficient as the direct use of the energy though (albeit
useful that it can do that etc)?

inevitably there is heat loss. What matters with solar is not efficiency, its financial efficiency, plus how its output fits the energy market. Its an improvement on solar pv which is truly pants in those respects.

It's solar PV that can't.

Which is what we were talking about of course. ;-)

the subject is wider than that of course


NT

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:04:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 16:27:20 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
nt:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 10:57:33 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

If someone *wants* solar, given it's inability to generate energy when
it's dark ... (when we still have to rely on other sources) then good

Solar power is already generating electricity after sunset via thermal storage.

Is that as efficient as the direct use of the energy though (albeit
useful that it can do that etc)?

inevitably there is heat loss.

Ok.

What matters with solar is not efficiency,

The people selling these systems seem to put quite a lot of weight on
the functional efficiency of their (PV) panels?

its financial efficiency, plus how its output fits the energy market. Its an improvement on solar pv which is truly pants in those respects.

Ok.

It's solar PV that can't.

Which is what we were talking about of course. ;-)

the subject is wider than that of course

It might be now but it wasn't at the point you replied to me. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 17:16:59 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
nt:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 16:27:20 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
nt:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 10:57:33 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

If someone *wants* solar, given it's inability to generate energy when
it's dark ... (when we still have to rely on other sources) then good

Solar power is already generating electricity after sunset via thermal storage.

Is that as efficient as the direct use of the energy though (albeit
useful that it can do that etc)?

inevitably there is heat loss.

Ok.

What matters with solar is not efficiency,

The people selling these systems seem to put quite a lot of weight on
the functional efficiency of their (PV) panels?

they would What else have they got going for them? Salesmen always want to distract you from the reality.

its financial efficiency, plus how its output fits the energy market. Its an improvement on solar pv which is truly pants in those respects.

Ok.

It's solar PV that can't.

Which is what we were talking about of course. ;-)

the subject is wider than that of course

It might be now but it wasn't at the point you replied to me. ;-)

It was, I widened it when I replied. But you know that.


NT

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:30:52 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:30:30 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

snip

So on average, solar and wind get subsidised to the extent of about
$24 per MWh, some fifteen times the subsidy given to nuclear,
fifty-four times that given to ordinary coal, and ninety-five times
that given to natural gas.
So it seems if you have the facts and the ability to understand them,
'You can manage what you can measure' wins out again. ;-)

If someone *wants* solar, given its inability to generate energy when
it's dark ... (when we still have to rely on other sources) then good
for them. I still don't want to be forced into subsidising anyone's
personal projects, especially ones that are questionable (FIT /
function at this latitude / suitability to our needs etc).

Quite.

Now, if you lived in California and used solar during the day to run
your aircon, *and* did so off your own back then good for you. ;-)

Or in Oz or the Sahara. Somewhere, IOW, where the sun shines quite a
lot, and you have enough useless land that you can capture a lot of it.

Makes sense indeed.


In Oz they were supposed to be planning a lot of solar, based on the
fact that they can meet the two criteria set out in the previous
paragraph. They were using tracking reflectors to melt salt in a tower,
with a reservoir of molten salt to provide overnight heat. The heat
boils water and runs conventional turbines etc. I think the plan was to
have individual sites that generate about 300MW each and just build
lots of them.

Yes, I saw that or something similar a good while back, certainly with
tracking reflectors focused on a crucible in the top of a tower. They
opened the shutters at the top of the tower and the reporter poked a
stick or roll-up-newspaper in the light beam and it spontaneously
combusted. ;-)

I don't know the economics of that but this was the plan a few years
ago - I've not seen anything since.

I think the idea was that the reflectors were more ecological and
economical than PV panels of the same area. Aren't there many PV
projects that have now been abandoned due to issues keeping the panels
clean or summat?

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:55:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

snip

What matters with solar is not efficiency,

The people selling these systems seem to put quite a lot of weight on
the functional efficiency of their (PV) panels?

they would

;-)

What else have they got going for them?

Generally, not a lot. That said, there are some companies who call now
and again with a more 'is there anything we can do for you and have
you seen our new whatever' and *are* happy to take 'no' (thank you)
for an answer.

Salesmen always want to distract you from the reality.

One, (cold calling), trying to sell me a solar PV system called me a
mug (or similar) for NOT wanting to join in the whole FIT thing but
then I don't think 'morals' are high on the list of attributes for
many such telephone salespeople. ;-)

snip

Cheers, T i m

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , T i m
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:30:30 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

snip

So on average, solar and wind get subsidised to the extent of about
$24 per MWh, some fifteen times the subsidy given to nuclear,
fifty-four times that given to ordinary coal, and ninety-five times
that given to natural gas.
So it seems if you have the facts and the ability to understand them,
'You can manage what you can measure' wins out again. ;-)

If someone *wants* solar, given its inability to generate energy when
it's dark ... (when we still have to rely on other sources) then good
for them. I still don't want to be forced into subsidising anyone's
personal projects, especially ones that are questionable (FIT /
function at this latitude / suitability to our needs etc).

Quite.

Now, if you lived in California and used solar during the day to run
your aircon, *and* did so off your own back then good for you. ;-)

Or in Oz or the Sahara. Somewhere, IOW, where the sun shines quite a
lot, and you have enough useless land that you can capture a lot of it.

Most of the PV we are discussing is on house roofs, not useless land.
There isn't a lot of useless land in Oz close to where electricity is used.

In Oz they were supposed to be planning a lot of solar,

They have in fact already installed more than anyone else.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-2...panels/6813532

based on the fact that they can meet the two criteria set out in the
previous paragraph. They were using tracking reflectors to melt salt in a
tower, with a reservoir of molten salt to provide overnight heat. The heat
boils water and runs conventional turbines etc. I think the plan was to
have individual sites that generate about 300MW each and just build lots
of them.

That was never planned in Oz.

I don't know the economics of that but this was the plan a few years
ago - I've not seen anything since.

Because it was never planned. Just someone's pipe dream.

On 29/09/15 17:16, T i m wrote:
The people selling these systems seem to put quite a lot of weight on
the functional efficiency of their (PV) panels?

Marketing bull**** is marketing bull****.

QED

--
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the
world it's not directly responsible for.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Sam Thatch
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , T i m
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:30:30 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

snip

So on average, solar and wind get subsidised to the extent of about
$24 per MWh, some fifteen times the subsidy given to nuclear,
fifty-four times that given to ordinary coal, and ninety-five times
that given to natural gas.
So it seems if you have the facts and the ability to understand them,
'You can manage what you can measure' wins out again. ;-)

If someone *wants* solar, given its inability to generate energy when
it's dark ... (when we still have to rely on other sources) then good
for them. I still don't want to be forced into subsidising anyone's
personal projects, especially ones that are questionable (FIT /
function at this latitude / suitability to our needs etc).

Quite.

Now, if you lived in California and used solar during the day to run
your aircon, *and* did so off your own back then good for you. ;-)

Or in Oz or the Sahara. Somewhere, IOW, where the sun shines quite a
lot, and you have enough useless land that you can capture a lot of it.

Most of the PV we are discussing is on house roofs, not useless land.
There isn't a lot of useless land in Oz close to where electricity is
used.

I'm not talking about solar PV, dimwit, I'm talking about solar. None
of the above talks specifically about PV.

In Oz they were supposed to be planning a lot of solar,

They have in fact already installed more than anyone else.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-2...stallation-of-
household-solar-panels/6813532

based on the fact that they can meet the two criteria set out in the
previous paragraph. They were using tracking reflectors to melt salt in
a tower, with a reservoir of molten salt to provide overnight heat. The
heat boils water and runs conventional turbines etc. I think the plan
was to have individual sites that generate about 300MW each and just
build lots of them.

That was never planned in Oz.

Certainly it was planned. See he

https://bze.org.au/zero-carbon-australia-2020

That's not planned, that was only ever just another
scam that never did get funded because it made no
economic sense whatever.

You can download either the full report or the synopsis, both listed under
the small picture of such a plant. Whether this was actually ever official
Oz govt policy I know not,

It never was.

but it was "planned" enough that someone bothered to write a 170 or so
pages long report.

That's not planned, that's just an attempted
scam that was never going to get funded.
Just more green bull****.

On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 17:04:59 UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 16:27:20 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
nt:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 10:57:33 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

If someone *wants* solar, given it's inability to generate energy when
it's dark ... (when we still have to rely on other sources) then good

Solar power is already generating electricity after sunset via thermal storage.

Is that as efficient as the direct use of the energy though (albeit
useful that it can do that etc)?

inevitably there is heat loss. What matters with solar is not efficiency, its financial efficiency, plus how its output fits the energy market. Its an improvement on solar pv which is truly pants in those respects.

It's solar PV that can't.

Which is what we were talking about of course. ;-)

the subject is wider than that of course


NT

Drivel from some one who doesn' town one.
As usual the big mouths are out who know nowt.
Efficiency matters because a n more efficient collector can be smaller in area and sometimes cheaper.
The area available for the collector (eg a roof) is often restricted.

On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 17:04:59 UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 16:27:20 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
nt:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 10:57:33 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

If someone *wants* solar, given it's inability to generate energy when
it's dark ... (when we still have to rely on other sources) then good

Solar power is already generating electricity after sunset via thermal storage.

Is that as efficient as the direct use of the energy though (albeit
useful that it can do that etc)?

inevitably there is heat loss. What matters with solar is not efficiency, its financial efficiency, plus how its output fits the energy market. Its an improvement on solar pv which is truly pants in those respects.

It's solar PV that can't.

Which is what we were talking about of course. ;-)

the subject is wider than that of course


NT

That'll be why every industrialised country in the world is massively installing them.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 23:32:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 29/09/15 17:16, T i m wrote:
The people selling these systems seem to put quite a lot of weight on
the functional efficiency of their (PV) panels?

Marketing bull**** is marketing bull****.

QED


Well, I'm sure that would explain some of it but I'm also sure there
must be different qualities amongst these devices and some
salespersons may be clued up re the (comparative) abilities of their
offerings.

Cheers, T i m

On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 06:55:14 UTC+1, harry wrote:
nt:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 16:27:20 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
nt:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 10:57:33 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

inevitably there is heat loss. What matters with solar is not efficiency, its financial efficiency, plus how its output fits the energy market. Its an improvement on solar pv which is truly pants in those respects.

Drivel from some one who doesn' town one.
As usual the big mouths are out who know nowt.
Efficiency matters because a n more efficient collector can be smaller in area and sometimes cheaper.
The area available for the collector (eg a roof) is often restricted.

Efficiency simply isn't the issue. The issue is how much energy for how much cost, not for how much sunlight.


NT

On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 06:56:42 UTC+1, harry wrote:
nt:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 16:27:20 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

inevitably there is heat loss. What matters with solar is not efficiency, its financial efficiency, plus how its output fits the energy market. Its an improvement on solar pv which is truly pants in those respects.

That'll be why every industrialised country in the world is massively installing them.

The only reason for that is to appease the green movement and win votes. In any other respect they make no sense at all.


NT

On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 09:03:33 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 23:32:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/09/15 17:16, T i m wrote:

The people selling these systems seem to put quite a lot of weight on
the functional efficiency of their (PV) panels?

Marketing bull**** is marketing bull****.

quite

Well, I'm sure that would explain some of it but I'm also sure there
must be different qualities amongst these devices and some

there are, but who cares? If I'm buying solar I care how much output for how much cost, I don't care whether they're 7 or 8% efficient.


salespersons may be clued up re the (comparative) abilities of their
offerings.

It's like quoting pmpo watts, it's just meaningless in the real world


NT

On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 17:58:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:30:52 +0100, Tim Streater

Or in Oz or the Sahara. Somewhere, IOW, where the sun shines quite a
lot, and you have enough useless land that you can capture a lot of it.

Makes sense indeed.

The problem there is that as the solar panels increase in temerature their efficiency drops adn their lifespan.

of course in sahara they really need it because they really need the power for what ????? Keeping the desert hot and bright at night ?

On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 06:56:42 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 17:04:59 UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 16:27:20 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
nt:
On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 10:57:33 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

If someone *wants* solar, given it's inability to generate energy when
it's dark ... (when we still have to rely on other sources) then good

Solar power is already generating electricity after sunset via thermal storage.

Is that as efficient as the direct use of the energy though (albeit
useful that it can do that etc)?

inevitably there is heat loss. What matters with solar is not efficiency, its financial efficiency, plus how its output fits the energy market. Its an improvement on solar pv which is truly pants in those respects.

It's solar PV that can't.

Which is what we were talking about of course. ;-)

the subject is wider than that of course


NT

That'll be why every industrialised country in the world is massively installing them.

Are you sure you don't mean nuclear reactors.

On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 13:00:55 UTC+1, wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 09:03:33 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 23:32:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/09/15 17:16, T i m wrote:

The people selling these systems seem to put quite a lot of weight on
the functional efficiency of their (PV) panels?

Marketing bull**** is marketing bull****.

quite

Well, I'm sure that would explain some of it but I'm also sure there
must be different qualities amongst these devices and some

there are, but who cares? If I'm buying solar I care how much output for how much cost, I don't care whether they're 7 or 8% efficient.

So you don;t care how efficient they are converting photon to volts?
seems a little odd, as 1% can be significant.



salespersons may be clued up re the (comparative) abilities of their
offerings.

It's like quoting pmpo watts, it's just meaningless in the real world


no it'll tell you how much suin will be needed to get the power yuo want.

On 28/09/2015 17:08, harry wrote:
On Monday, 28 September 2015 15:31:42 UTC+1, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:

Why don't the government give an increased FIT for East/West array?

Because even they are not quite that daft. You have to double up on all
the hardware and have two independent arrays with one always working at
low efficiency. Even if you have money to burn it is still a waste.

Installing solar power at our latitude is an exercise in futility.

This would significantly smooth out the solar peak and encourage a much
greater up-take by the large percentage of folks who don't have an
optimal SE through SW facing roof.

People moan about the cost of FIT being borne by the rest of the
population but surely it's better keeping payments to UK residents
rather than the next generation of foreign investors e.g. China-land
who's building Hinkly C reactor?

Obviously still need an "on/off solution for night and cloudy days but a
smoother solar PV curve from encouraging East/West panels seems to make
sense to me..

I think they already do this in Germany where there is more solar power than we have.

Probably true.

The German electricity market is extremely distorted which is why they
are now burning vast amounts of the dirtiest lignite coal they can find.

I have a neighbour with a N/S orientated house.
They have panels on both sides of the roof.
The main benefit is that they save even more electricity as the distribution curve is over a longer period.

Like hell they do. In winter it will barely do anything useful.
Up to 30 degrees off due South you can live with.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:00:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 09:03:33 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 23:32:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/09/15 17:16, T i m wrote:

The people selling these systems seem to put quite a lot of weight on
the functional efficiency of their (PV) panels?

Marketing bull**** is marketing bull****.

quite

Well, I'm sure that would explain some of it but I'm also sure there
must be different qualities amongst these devices and some

there are, but who cares?

You do, as you are about to tell us.

If I'm buying solar I care how much output for how much cost, I don't care whether they're 7 or 8% efficient.

No, but you do therefore care that you are getting the best bang for
your buck (as you have just stated in fact). So (if you had the mind
to consider this) ... hearing that Co X have a panel that is 10% more
efficient than the ones you might be considering (at the same price)
is *exactly* the sort thing you would be interested in hearing. You
cannot separate the two.


salespersons may be clued up re the (comparative) abilities of their
offerings.

It's like quoting pmpo watts, it's just meaningless in the real world

See above.

See, I wasn't working on *just* the comparative figures but the actual
real-world figures as well. Sorry if you didn't realise that's what I
was talking about. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:55:55 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 13:00:55 UTC+1, wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 09:03:33 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 23:32:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/09/15 17:16, T i m wrote:

The people selling these systems seem to put quite a lot of weight on
the functional efficiency of their (PV) panels?

Marketing bull**** is marketing bull****.

quite

Well, I'm sure that would explain some of it but I'm also sure there
must be different qualities amongst these devices and some

there are, but who cares? If I'm buying solar I care how much output for how much cost, I don't care whether they're 7 or 8% efficient.

So you don;t care how efficient they are converting photon to volts?
seems a little odd, as 1% can be significant.

Of course he does, he just chose to misunderstand my point. ;-)

If you are considering solar panel X and some sales person comes up
with an alternative panel of the same size, price but 10% more output
(over the same time period), *of course* he would be interested. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:44:24 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 17:58:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:30:52 +0100, Tim Streater

Or in Oz or the Sahara. Somewhere, IOW, where the sun shines quite a
lot, and you have enough useless land that you can capture a lot of it.

Makes sense indeed.

The problem there is that as the solar panels increase in temerature their efficiency drops adn their lifespan.

Understood.

of course in sahara they really need it because they really need the power for what ????? Keeping the desert hot and bright at night ?

Running all that AC and the water pumping / desalination plant? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 15:28:37 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:55:55 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 13:00:55 UTC+1, wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 09:03:33 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 23:32:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/09/15 17:16, T i m wrote:

The people selling these systems seem to put quite a lot of weight on
the functional efficiency of their (PV) panels?

Marketing bull**** is marketing bull****.

quite

Well, I'm sure that would explain some of it but I'm also sure there
must be different qualities amongst these devices and some

there are, but who cares? If I'm buying solar I care how much output for how much cost, I don't care whether they're 7 or 8% efficient.

So you don;t care how efficient they are converting photon to volts?
seems a little odd, as 1% can be significant.

Of course he does, he just chose to misunderstand my point. ;-)

Chose to or didn;t I wasnt; sure.


If you are considering solar panel X and some sales person comes up
with an alternative panel of the same size, price but 10% more output
(over the same time period), *of course* he would be interested. ;-)

Perhaps or maybe what he's waiting for is for the salesman to say well this one is a government special not very effecient won't work well in sunmmer due to heat but it's cheap and you'll get it installed for free as a subsidy because the company boss has been lobbying the local goverment and has give them a donation of £100,000 for party funds :-)

On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 15:30:10 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:44:24 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 17:58:38 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:30:52 +0100, Tim Streater

Or in Oz or the Sahara. Somewhere, IOW, where the sun shines quite a
lot, and you have enough useless land that you can capture a lot of it.

Makes sense indeed.

The problem there is that as the solar panels increase in temerature their efficiency drops adn their lifespan.

Understood.

of course in sahara they really need it because they really need the power for what ????? Keeping the desert hot and bright at night ?

Running all that AC and the water pumping / desalination plant? ;-)

for the golf course or is it those 2 million air cobnditioed tents they won;t let their refuggee/asylum seeking muslim brothers use

On 29/09/2015 10:57, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:30:30 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

Now, if you lived in California and used solar during the day to run
your aircon, *and* did so off your own back then good for you. ;-)

Funny you should say that T i m
I was looking at ways of using generated power during the hottest most
productive parts of the day and this was exactly what I was looking into.

Our upstairs gets so hot even with full loft insulation I thought that
having air-con which would only come on when all other baseline energy
demands were met would be the perfect answer.

Trying to find an auto-switch that would allow air-con to run or not
depending on PV output appears to be somewhat harder though.
Best I can find is an auto-switch that shoots excess power to an
immersion heater which is pretty useless. Air-Con is the only thing that
you need to use at the same time as power is being produced.

/China-land
who's building Hinkly C reactor? /Q

Would that be "Chinkly C" ?

Jim K

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 08:36:10 -0700, JimK wrote:

China-land who's building Hinkly C reactor?

Would that be "Chinkly C" ?

So long as it isn't crinkly.

(****ed-up quoting fixed)

On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 15:26:01 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
nt:
On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 09:03:33 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 23:32:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/09/15 17:16, T i m wrote:

The people selling these systems seem to put quite a lot of weight on
the functional efficiency of their (PV) panels?

Marketing bull**** is marketing bull****.

quite

Well, I'm sure that would explain some of it but I'm also sure there
must be different qualities amongst these devices and some

there are, but who cares?

You do, as you are about to tell us.

If I'm buying solar I care how much output for how much cost, I don't care whether they're 7 or 8% efficient.

No, but you do therefore care that you are getting the best bang for
your buck (as you have just stated in fact). So (if you had the mind
to consider this) ... hearing that Co X have a panel that is 10% more
efficient than the ones you might be considering (at the same price)
is *exactly* the sort thing you would be interested in hearing. You
cannot separate the two.


salespersons may be clued up re the (comparative) abilities of their
offerings.

It's like quoting pmpo watts, it's just meaningless in the real world

See above.

See, I wasn't working on *just* the comparative figures but the actual
real-world figures as well. Sorry if you didn't realise that's what I
was talking about. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

exactly the sort of child like argument that makes online discussions so often so pointless

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:40:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 15:26:01 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
nt:
On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 09:03:33 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 23:32:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/09/15 17:16, T i m wrote:

The people selling these systems seem to put quite a lot of weight on
the functional efficiency of their (PV) panels?

Marketing bull**** is marketing bull****.

quite

Well, I'm sure that would explain some of it but I'm also sure there
must be different qualities amongst these devices and some

there are, but who cares?

You do, as you are about to tell us.

If I'm buying solar I care how much output for how much cost, I don't care whether they're 7 or 8% efficient.

No, but you do therefore care that you are getting the best bang for
your buck (as you have just stated in fact). So (if you had the mind
to consider this) ... hearing that Co X have a panel that is 10% more
efficient than the ones you might be considering (at the same price)
is *exactly* the sort thing you would be interested in hearing. You
cannot separate the two.


salespersons may be clued up re the (comparative) abilities of their
offerings.

It's like quoting pmpo watts, it's just meaningless in the real world

See above.

See, I wasn't working on *just* the comparative figures but the actual
real-world figures as well. Sorry if you didn't realise that's what I
was talking about. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

exactly the sort of child like argument that makes online discussions so often so pointless


Read what you wrote, read what I wrote and try again.

Cheers, T i m

On Wednesday, 30 September 2015 19:30:59 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
nt:

exactly the sort of child like argument that makes online discussions so often so pointless


Read what you wrote, read what I wrote and try again.

OK. Enjoy the 6 year old style debating on your own.


NT