https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130
--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 09/09/2019 12:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , tony sayer
wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130

Gosh, I'm astonished. Anyone else astonished?


I suspect the same is going on with air sourced heat pumps for domestic
heating and hot water.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 09/09/2019 12:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , tony sayer
wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130

Gosh, I'm astonished. Anyone else astonished?

In this sun soaked country of ours? Yup astonishing! :-)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Chris Hogg wrote:

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 11:39:09 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130

Yes, I saw it mentioned on BBC Red Button (hooray, got it right this
time - no longer Ceefax!). A sad byproduct of the global warming
scare, the rush to renewable energy and unscrupulous business.

Sadly, there will always be those whose business model is based
on deception.

The various firms I approached for quotes for my installation all
appeared to play by the rules, and used PVGIS figures for their
calculations. The only problems were those who tried to quote for
more panels than would actually fit on the roof.

Looking at my spreadsheets, the estimated output calculated
forward to current date was 25.11 MWh, and the actual performance
has been 31.65 MWh, already having paid back the initial
investment.

I gather that the official predictions have since been updated,
appearing to be more optimistic. When I have a moment, I may well
compare the results.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
@ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On 09/09/2019 11:39, tony sayer wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130

ROFLMAO!

My exes late dad bought some water heating panels on thee basis they
would 'halve the cost of heating'.

When I pointed out to him that the brochure said 'halve the cost of
heating his hot water' and never mentioned the house heating at all, he
refused to believe me.


--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

On 09/09/2019 12:43, alan_m wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , tony sayer
wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130

Gosh, I'm astonished. Anyone else astonished?


I suspect the same is going on with air sourced heat pumps for domestic
heating and hot water.

No. Of all the green **** I have analysefd a few things made sense.

Ground and to an extent air sourced heat pumps would, if run off nukes,
be cheaper than oil and comparable with gas.

More pumped storage would be worth building at a few sites in scotland,

LED bulbs were actually worth having.



--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On 09/09/2019 11:39, tony sayer wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130


Man is offered 'free' money, and believed the sales patter
without any DYOR, and now wants 'Compo' from Barclays banks
shareholders.

I'm sure the PPI outfits will be on the case any time soon.

On 09/09/2019 13:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:43, alan_m wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , tony sayer
wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130

Gosh, I'm astonished. Anyone else astonished?


I suspect the same is going on with air sourced heat pumps for
domestic heating and hot water.

No. Of all the green **** I have analysefd a few things made sense.

Ground and to an extent air sourced heat pumps would, if run off nukes,
be cheaper than oil and comparable with gas.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJr_oPXRYl0

More pumped storage would be worth building at a few sites in scotland,

LED bulbs were actually worth having.

On 09/09/2019 12:56, John Rumm wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , tony sayer
wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130

Gosh, I'm astonished. Anyone else astonished?

In this sun soaked country of ours? Yup astonishing! :-)



It's the £10K for just 6 panels that astonished me,
(unless there are another 6 on the other flank and
the house is east/west aspect).

On 09/09/2019 13:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/2019 11:39, tony sayer wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130

ROFLMAO!

My exes late dad bought some water heating panels on thee basis they
would 'halve the cost of heating'.

When I pointed out to him that the brochure said 'halve the cost of
heating his hot water'Â* and never mentioned the house heating at all, he
refused to believe me.



And these people can vote. Frightening.

I think anything that can save usage of power or can, on site mean you get
some heating or power directly is all you can hope for, as anything that
relies on some external company to play fair is doomed to failure before the
end of life of the product.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 11:39:09 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130

Yes, I saw it mentioned on BBC Red Button (hooray, got it right this
time - no longer Ceefax!). A sad byproduct of the global warming
scare, the rush to renewable energy and unscrupulous business. The
same thing happens on a much bigger scale, when local councils give
planning permission for the installation of solar farms and wind
turbines. But I bet a post-installation analysis and comparison with
predictions is never done.

--

Chris

On 09/09/2019 14:39, Andrew wrote:
On 09/09/2019 13:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:43, alan_m wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , tony sayer
wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130

Gosh, I'm astonished. Anyone else astonished?


I suspect the same is going on with air sourced heat pumps for
domestic heating and hot water.

No. Of all the green **** I have analysefd a few things made sense.

Ground and to an extent air sourced heat pumps would, if run off
nukes, be cheaper than oil and comparable with gas.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJr_oPXRYl0

It is not clear either that that house was being heated by an air source
heat pump (they talkked abiut heat recivery ventilation) or that it was
correctly installed. Normally on new builds there is massive insulation,
and underfloor heating - you need extremely large areas of 'radiator' to
utilise the rather low grade heat from a heat pump.

If that famiy had an inadequate heat pump output or inadequate radiator
area so they had to use immersion heating to get te temeperiures up, teh
coist will treble. Alreday hot water needs to be boosted to 60C as that
is generally outside the limits of an air sourced pump

I repeat. done *properly* heat pumps should be similar in cost to gas.

I nearly put in ground source here but I would have needed far more
pipes in the UFH downstairs and it would have been impossible to utilise
teh existing upstairs heating at all.


More pumped storage would be worth building at a few sites in scotland,

LED bulbs were actually worth having.






--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

ۥ Confucius

On 09/09/2019 14:57, Andrew wrote:
On 09/09/2019 13:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/2019 11:39, tony sayer wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130

ROFLMAO!

My exes late dad bought some water heating panels on thee basis they
would 'halve the cost of heating'.

When I pointed out to him that the brochure said 'halve the cost of
heating his hot water'Â* and never mentioned the house heating at all,
he refused to believe me.



And these people can vote. Frightening.

Well no he can't. He is dead now.


--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 09/09/2019 14:35, Andrew wrote:
On 09/09/2019 11:39, tony sayer wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130


Man is offered 'free' money, and believed the sales patter
without any DYOR, and now wants 'Compo' from Barclays banks
shareholders.

I'm sure the PPI outfits will be on the case any time soon.

From the article it sounded like the chancer who sold the kit in the
first place, has now jumped ship to do some ambulance chasing himself!

Still I suppose he has nice start list of customers, especially if he
can somehow make it the bank's fault.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Monday, 9 September 2019 11:48:02 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130
--

None of these stories says how big the array is so it's hard to comment.
The picture looks like around 2Kw,
When they are installed the owner is provided with an assessment of expected Kwh/year generated.

My first 4Kw array cost £14,000 and generates £2000/year so it's paid for itself recently.
My newer array was £6000 but only generates £500/year.

I have near perfect orientation. Someone who hasn't might get a lot less.

In message , Andrew
writes
On 09/09/2019 12:56, John Rumm wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , tony sayer
wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130

Gosh, I'm astonished. Anyone else astonished?
In this sun soaked country of ours? Yup astonishing! :-)


It's the £10K for just 6 panels that astonished me,
(unless there are another 6 on the other flank and
the house is east/west aspect).

Ha. They got my non technical sister to sign up for solar panels... on a
North South aligned double pitch roof.

They repaid her deposit when I got her to cancel!

--
Tim Lamb

On Monday, 9 September 2019 17:15:53 UTC+1, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Andrew
writes
On 09/09/2019 12:56, John Rumm wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , tony sayer
wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130

Gosh, I'm astonished. Anyone else astonished?
In this sun soaked country of ours? Yup astonishing! :-)


It's the £10K for just 6 panels that astonished me,
(unless there are another 6 on the other flank and
the house is east/west aspect).

Ha. They got my non technical sister to sign up for solar panels... on a
North South aligned double pitch roof.

They repaid her deposit when I got her to cancel!


N/S would give 25% less output than E/W

On 09/09/2019 13:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:43, alan_m wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , tony sayer
wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130

Gosh, I'm astonished. Anyone else astonished?


I suspect the same is going on with air sourced heat pumps for
domestic heating and hot water.

No. Of all the green **** I have analysefd a few things made sense.

Ground and to an extent air sourced heat pumps would, if run off nukes,
be cheaper than oil and comparable with gas.

Is this the nuclear electricity too cheap to meter?

Air sourced may only be sensible if you want domestic air conditioning
to get a cooler house in summer. However this could mean that an average
household will will be using more electricity than currently being
consumed. The system becomes much less efficient during the winter
months and running costs barely break even compared to gas or oil. Maybe
they will short term with the 7 year early adopter subsidy which is not
guaranteed if demand exceeds the money allocated. This assumes that you
have well insulated house and possibly replace an existing CH system.

Ground sourced can be viable but this costs more and care has to be
taken with the design of the installation, as some local councils have
found when implemented on some of their estates.

What the greenwash companies are pushing (mis-selling) is retro fitting
air sourced heat pumps to existing CH systems that are unlikely to to
have the savings claimed over other sources of heating, more so after
the subsidies end.

When the Greens come to power in the next general election we will end
up with more wind turbines and solar panel farms which will need to
supply a lot more electricity to power all of our CH and electric cars
as conventional fuels will be banned after 2025 in our zero carbon
society. No domestic gas or oil and with more expensive electricity and
then air sourced heat pumps fitted to your home will become cost effective.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 09/09/2019 16:22, harry wrote:

My first 4Kw array cost £14,000 and generates £2000/year

Don't you mean that it steals up to £2000/year from the rest of us from
subsidies paid for in our energy bills?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 09/09/2019 18:29, alan_m wrote:
On 09/09/2019 16:22, harry wrote:

My first 4Kw array cost £14,000 and generates £2000/year

Don't you mean that it steals up to £2000/year from the rest of us from
subsidies paid for in our energy bills?

he does. It will generate about 3.5MWh per year Market value at 4p a
unit wholesale around £140.





--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 14:57:27 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 09/09/2019 13:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/2019 11:39, tony sayer wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130

ROFLMAO!

My exes late dad bought some water heating panels on thee basis they
would 'halve the cost of heating'.

When I pointed out to him that the brochure said 'halve the cost of
heating his hot water'* and never mentioned the house heating at all, he
refused to believe me.



And these people can vote. Frightening.

And more likely to vote for Leave than Remain and that promise of the
Magic Beans. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2019 13:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:43, alan_m wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , tony sayer
wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130

Gosh, I'm astonished. Anyone else astonished?


I suspect the same is going on with air sourced heat pumps for domestic
heating and hot water.

No. Of all the green **** I have analysefd a few things made sense.

Ground and to an extent air sourced heat pumps would, if run off nukes,
be cheaper than oil and comparable with gas.

Is this the nuclear electricity too cheap to meter?

Air sourced may only be sensible if you want domestic air conditioning to
get a cooler house in summer. However this could mean that an average
household will will be using more electricity than currently being
consumed. The system becomes much less efficient during the winter months
and running costs barely break even compared to gas or oil. Maybe they
will short term with the 7 year early adopter subsidy which is not
guaranteed if demand exceeds the money allocated. This assumes that you
have well insulated house and possibly replace an existing CH system.

Ground sourced can be viable but this costs more and care has to be taken
with the design of the installation, as some local councils have found
when implemented on some of their estates.

What the greenwash companies are pushing (mis-selling) is retro fitting
air sourced heat pumps to existing CH systems that are unlikely to to have
the savings claimed over other sources of heating, more so after the
subsidies end.

When the Greens come to power in the next general election

No chance given they have just the one MP currently. They
wont even be able to change policy in a coalition either.

we will end
up with more wind turbines and solar panel farms which will need to supply
a lot more electricity to power all of our CH and electric cars as
conventional fuels will be banned after 2025 in our zero carbon society.
No domestic gas or oil and with more expensive electricity and then air
sourced heat pumps fitted to your home will become cost effective.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 10:26:41 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


When the Greens come to power in the next general election

No chance given they have just the one MP currently. They
wont even be able to change policy in a coalition either.

Every chance, senile troll, as such things can happen quickly and
unexpectedly, as happened, e.g., in Germany!

--
Bill Wright to Rot Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

On Monday, 9 September 2019 18:29:19 UTC+1, alan_m wrote:
On 09/09/2019 16:22, harry wrote:

My first 4Kw array cost £14,000 and generates £2000/year

Don't you mean that it steals up to £2000/year from the rest of us from
subsidies paid for in our energy bills?


No it means you were too stupid to take the government offer up when it was available.
I 'spect you're an idle, dopey socialist.

On Monday, 9 September 2019 16:22:39 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 11:48:02 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130
--

None of these stories says how big the array is so it's hard to comment.
The picture looks like around 2Kw,
When they are installed the owner is provided with an assessment of expected Kwh/year generated.

My first 4Kw array cost £14,000 and generates £2000/year so it's paid for itself recently.
My newer array was £6000 but only generates £500/year.

why such a difference ?
If £14K gives you £2k per year = £7k = £1k per year
then why does £6k = £500 per year

has the sun become less bright over the last few years or is it global warming ?


I have near perfect orientation. Someone who hasn't might get a lot less..

So if the arrays are differnt what is this difference ?

On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 11:08:04 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 16:22:39 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 11:48:02 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130
--

None of these stories says how big the array is so it's hard to comment..
The picture looks like around 2Kw,
When they are installed the owner is provided with an assessment of expected Kwh/year generated.

My first 4Kw array cost £14,000 and generates £2000/year so it's paid for itself recently.
My newer array was £6000 but only generates £500/year.

why such a difference ?
If £14K gives you £2k per year = £7k = £1k per year
then why does £6k = £500 per year

has the sun become less bright over the last few years or is it global warming ?


I have near perfect orientation. Someone who hasn't might get a lot less.

So if the arrays are differnt what is this difference ?

Generation tariffs have reduced significantly over the past ten years. We spent £20K on ours about 10 years ago and get a bit over £1K pa but we are paid 54.17p per unit generated and an extra 3.82p for allegedly exporting all of them. I must say that I didn't notice a reduction in our electricity bills when we had them installed but most of the power is generated in the afternoon when we don't use much.

Jonathan

On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 11:08:04 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 16:22:39 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 11:48:02 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130
--

None of these stories says how big the array is so it's hard to comment..
The picture looks like around 2Kw,
When they are installed the owner is provided with an assessment of expected Kwh/year generated.

My first 4Kw array cost £14,000 and generates £2000/year so it's paid for itself recently.
My newer array was £6000 but only generates £500/year.

why such a difference ?
If £14K gives you £2k per year = £7k = £1k per year
then why does £6k = £500 per year

has the sun become less bright over the last few years or is it global warming ?


I have near perfect orientation. Someone who hasn't might get a lot less.

So if the arrays are differnt what is this difference ?

Generation tariffs have reduced significantly over the past ten years. We spent £20K on ours about 10 years ago and get a bit over £1K pa but we are paid 54.17p per unit generated and an extra 3.82p for allegedly exporting 50% of them. I must say that I didn't notice a reduction in our electricity bills when we had them installed but most of the power is generated in the afternoon when we don't use much.

Jonathan

On 09/09/2019 18:19, alan_m wrote:
Ground sourced can be viable but this costs more and care has to be
taken with the design of the installation, as some local councils have
found when implemented on some of their estates.

all those abandoned deep coal mines were so hot the miners
worked in shorts and tee shirts, so I'm surprised they
haven't been re-used as a ground-source district heating
system.

On 10/09/2019 10:50, harry wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 18:29:19 UTC+1, alan_m wrote:
On 09/09/2019 16:22, harry wrote:

My first 4Kw array cost £14,000 and generates £2000/year

Don't you mean that it steals up to £2000/year from the rest of us from
subsidies paid for in our energy bills?


No it means you were too stupid to take the government offer up when it was available.
I 'spect you're an idle, dopey socialist.


It was a socialist government who dished out the bribes.

On 10/09/2019 15:55, Jonathan wrote:
most of the power is generated in the afternoon when we don't use much.

And when the Grid tripped out a few weeks back, no-one was able to
use it because they all shut down instantly when the voltage dropped
below NNN v

On 10/09/2019 15:56, Jonathan wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 11:08:04 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 16:22:39 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 11:48:02 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130
--

None of these stories says how big the array is so it's hard to comment.
The picture looks like around 2Kw,
When they are installed the owner is provided with an assessment of expected Kwh/year generated.

My first 4Kw array cost £14,000 and generates £2000/year so it's paid for itself recently.
My newer array was £6000 but only generates £500/year.

why such a difference ?
If £14K gives you £2k per year = £7k = £1k per year
then why does £6k = £500 per year

has the sun become less bright over the last few years or is it global warming ?


I have near perfect orientation. Someone who hasn't might get a lot less.

So if the arrays are differnt what is this difference ?

Generation tariffs have reduced significantly over the past ten years. We spent £20K on ours about 10 years ago and get a bit over £1K pa but we are paid 54.17p per unit generated and an extra 3.82p for allegedly exporting 50% of them. I must say that I didn't notice a reduction in our electricity bills when we had them installed but most of the power is generated in the afternoon when we don't use much.

Jonathan


A BIG question is what happens when the panels are 25+ years old ?.
Wventually they will head for landfill, but because of the cadmium
and other nasties they contain, they might by that time be classofied as
dangerous waste, like asbestos.

You might possibly discover that removal by a licensed waste
contractor wipes out most if not all the 'profit' you have made.

Cue the PPI firms -

"did you spend £18K on solar panels but not told of the expensive
disposal costs ?. Phone 0800-line-our-pockets to get Compo"

On 10/09/2019 11:08, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 16:22:39 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 11:48:02 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:

why such a difference ?
If £14K gives you £2k per year = £7k = £1k per year
then why does £6k = £500 per year

has the sun become less bright over the last few years or is it global warming ?

Earlier installed panels attracted greater FIT payments?


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 9 September 2019 16:22:39 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 11:48:02 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130
--

None of these stories says how big the array is so it's hard to comment.
The picture looks like around 2Kw,
When they are installed the owner is provided with an assessment of
expected Kwh/year generated.

My first 4Kw array cost £14,000 and generates £2000/year so it's paid for
itself recently.
My newer array was £6000 but only generates £500/year.

why such a difference ?

Only the first one got the terminally stupid FIT subsidys.

Another one today wouldnt get any at all.

If £14K gives you £2k per year = £7k = £1k per year
then why does £6k = £500 per year

See above.

I have near perfect orientation. Someone who hasn't might get a lot
less.

So if the arrays are differnt what is this difference ?

See above.

On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 11:08:04 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 16:22:39 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 11:48:02 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130
--

None of these stories says how big the array is so it's hard to comment..
The picture looks like around 2Kw,
When they are installed the owner is provided with an assessment of expected Kwh/year generated.

My first 4Kw array cost £14,000 and generates £2000/year so it's paid for itself recently.
My newer array was £6000 but only generates £500/year.

why such a difference ?
If £14K gives you £2k per year = £7k = £1k per year
then why does £6k = £500 per year

has the sun become less bright over the last few years or is it global warming ?

The price paid/Kwh reduced as time went on.


I have near perfect orientation. Someone who hasn't might get a lot less.

So if the arrays are differnt what is this difference ?

Perfect orientation is pointing South, 36deg inclination plus no shading. (To maximise power generated/year.)

Anything different reduces annual output.

On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 16:30:46 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
On 10/09/2019 15:56, Jonathan wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 11:08:04 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 16:22:39 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 11:48:02 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130
--

None of these stories says how big the array is so it's hard to comment.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:17:34 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile idiot's latest troll****

Seriously, 02:17 am???? And you are up and trolling ALREADY? LOL Do you know
no shame AT ALL, you obnoxious senile pest? tsk

--
Bill Wright to Rot Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

On 10/09/2019 17:37, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 11:08:04 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 16:22:39 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 11:48:02 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130
--

None of these stories says how big the array is so it's hard to comment.
The picture looks like around 2Kw,
When they are installed the owner is provided with an assessment of expected Kwh/year generated.

My first 4Kw array cost £14,000 and generates £2000/year so it's paid for itself recently.
My newer array was £6000 but only generates £500/year.

why such a difference ?
If £14K gives you £2k per year = £7k = £1k per year
then why does £6k = £500 per year

has the sun become less bright over the last few years or is it global warming ?

The price paid/Kwh reduced as time went on.


I have near perfect orientation. Someone who hasn't might get a lot less.

So if the arrays are differnt what is this difference ?

Perfect orientation is pointing South, 36deg inclination plus no shading. (To maximise power generated/year.)

Anything different reduces annual output.

Not necessarily.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...cientists.html

SteveW

On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 21:30:33 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 10/09/2019 17:37, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 11:08:04 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 16:22:39 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 11:48:02 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130
--

None of these stories says how big the array is so it's hard to comment.

In message , Steve Walker
writes
On 10/09/2019 17:37, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 11:08:04 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 16:22:39 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 11:48:02 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130
--

None of these stories says how big the array is so it's hard to comment.
The picture looks like around 2Kw,
When they are installed the owner is provided with an assessment of
expected Kwh/year generated.

My first 4Kw array cost £14,000 and generates £2000/year so it's
paid for itself recently.
My newer array was £6000 but only generates £500/year.

why such a difference ?
If £14K gives you £2k per year = £7k = £1k per year
then why does £6k = £500 per year

has the sun become less bright over the last few years or is it
global warming ?
The price paid/Kwh reduced as time went on.
I have near perfect orientation. Someone who hasn't might get a
lot less.

So if the arrays are differnt what is this difference ?
Perfect orientation is pointing South, 36deg inclination plus no
shading. (To maximise power generated/year.)
Anything different reduces annual output.

Not necessarily.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...0996273/Most-s
olar-panels-are-facing-the-wrong-direction-say-scientists.html

My known mathematical limitations or Telegraph?

Average production 3700kWhr/yr at 14.38p/kWh = £785?

--
Tim Lamb

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , Steve Walker
writes
On 10/09/2019 17:37, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 11:08:04 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 16:22:39 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Monday, 9 September 2019 11:48:02 UTC+1, tony sayer wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49566130
--

None of these stories says how big the array is so it's hard to comment.
The picture looks like around 2Kw,
When they are installed the owner is provided with an assessment of expected
Kwh/year generated.

My first 4Kw array cost £14,000 and generates £2000/year so it's paid for itself
recently.
My newer array was £6000 but only generates £500/year.

why such a difference ?
If £14K gives you £2k per year = £7k = £1k per year
then why does £6k = £500 per year

has the sun become less bright over the last few years or is it global warming ?
The price paid/Kwh reduced as time went on.
I have near perfect orientation. Someone who hasn't might get a lot less.

So if the arrays are differnt what is this difference ?
Perfect orientation is pointing South, 36deg inclination plus no shading. (To
maximise power generated/year.)
Anything different reduces annual output.

Not necessarily.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...0996273/Most-s
olar-panels-are-facing-the-wrong-direction-say-scientists.html

My known mathematical limitations or Telegraph?

The optimum orientation for an individual panel is, as you say
36 deg (or whatever).

This is averaged out over a day, with peak ouput at mid-day
or at least when the distance between the panel and the
sun is shortest.( Something like that )

The point the article is making (I think) is that having all the
panels in a country (or whatever) producing their peak output at
exactly the same time is a bad ides as this requires more
battery capacity.

If the angle is altered on some panels so as to change the peak
output to a different time of day, although less efficient
overall, this will smooth out the supply slightly and so be less
costly in terms of storage.

The difficulty with this might be that it requires a degree
of co-ordination and co-operation between panel owners/ operators
with cross subsidy of owners/operators of less efficient
panels.

Although it's surprising that this has only cropped up now.

Or maybe the Telegraph reporter just chanced upon a German Web
Page from 15 years ago.


michael adams

....