We are committed to pay a feed-in tariff of 45p/kWh for 25 years on
this. But these particular photovoltaic panels shouldn't cost us too
much, since they face slightly north of east!

The roof pitch is quite shallow so they will never even properly face
the low sun as it rises.

The main pic was taken at 11.55am.

The inset is from Multimap, and I assume straight up is north.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/ele...0money%203.jpg

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:

We are committed to pay a feed-in tariff of 45p/kWh for 25 years on
this. But these particular photovoltaic panels shouldn't cost us too
much, since they face slightly north of east!

The roof pitch is quite shallow so they will never even properly face
the low sun as it rises.

I doubt the rent-a-roof schemes would be inept enough to fund one that's
so badly aimed, so presumably so presumably the daft buggers have paid
out of their own pockets for it ... as you say, that one shouldn't cost
the other bill-payers too much, but in general they do.

I predict it won't be very long before there is a buy out of these contracts
and the whole thing folds and becomes a bit white elephant.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
Bill Wright wrote:

We are committed to pay a feed-in tariff of 45p/kWh for 25 years on
this. But these particular photovoltaic panels shouldn't cost us too
much, since they face slightly north of east!

The roof pitch is quite shallow so they will never even properly face
the low sun as it rises.

I doubt the rent-a-roof schemes would be inept enough to fund one that's
so badly aimed, so presumably so presumably the daft buggers have paid out
of their own pockets for it ... as you say, that one shouldn't cost the
other bill-payers too much, but in general they do.

Bill Wright wrote:
We are committed to pay a feed-in tariff of 45p/kWh for 25 years on
this. But these particular photovoltaic panels shouldn't cost us too
much, since they face slightly north of east!

The roof pitch is quite shallow so they will never even properly face
the low sun as it rises.

The main pic was taken at 11.55am.

The inset is from Multimap, and I assume straight up is north.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/ele...0money%203.jpg

Maybe the scaffolding is there to take it down?

Anyway, a greater mystery is why the aerial on Tim's van extends all the
way up the end house. Is it a poor reception area?

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 01:38:35 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

We are committed to pay a feed-in tariff of 45p/kWh for 25 years on
this. But these particular photovoltaic panels shouldn't cost us too
much, since they face slightly north of east!

The roof pitch is quite shallow so they will never even properly face
the low sun as it rises.

The main pic was taken at 11.55am.

The inset is from Multimap, and I assume straight up is north.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/ele...0money%203.jpg

Bill

You'ld be surprised.

There's a useful estimator, which is pretty accurate at
http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/.

Using Doncaster as a location and the default roof slope of 35
degrees, a south facing roof should yield 909kWhr per year (per kW
peak of installed capacity). Facing 10 degrees N of E yields 678 kWhr
per year, but dropping the slope to 20 degrees increases the output
slightly to 718 kWhr per year.

The output is lower than a south facing roof, but not as low as you'ld
think.

Norman Wells wrote:

Bill Wright wrote:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11023364/ele...0money%203.jpg

Maybe the scaffolding is there to take it down?

Anyway, a greater mystery is why the aerial on Tim's van extends all the
way up the end house.

It's communicating with the UFO hovering above his house and hiding
behind the trees.

Bill Taylor wrote:

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

Using Doncaster as a location (per kW
peak of installed capacity). Facing 10 degrees N of E
dropping the slope to 20 degrees increases the output
slightly to 718 kWhr per year.

For Doncaster, 20 degree slope and -100 degree azimuth, building
integrated rather than freestanding, all other settings left as default,
it gives me an annual output of 655kWh per 1kW of installed panels,
that's worth a measly 17p/day (at household rates, not FIT rates).

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 09:54:47 +0000, Andy Burns
wrote:

Bill Taylor wrote:

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

Using Doncaster as a location (per kW
peak of installed capacity). Facing 10 degrees N of E
dropping the slope to 20 degrees increases the output
slightly to 718 kWhr per year.

For Doncaster, 20 degree slope and -100 degree azimuth, building
integrated rather than freestanding, all other settings left as default,
it gives me an annual output of 655kWh per 1kW of installed panels,
that's worth a measly 17p/day (at household rates, not FIT rates).

I used the more accurate Climate-SAF database and free standing;
retro-fit installations aren't building integrated. But that doesn't
change the point that the installation will generate about 80% of the
output of a more ideal installation, so will still be receiving a
substantial subsidy from electricity consumers

Bill Taylor wrote:

There's a useful estimator, which is pretty accurate at
http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/.

Using Doncaster as a location and the default roof slope of 35
degrees, a south facing roof should yield 909kWhr per year (per kW
peak of installed capacity). Facing 10 degrees N of E yields 678 kWhr
per year, but dropping the slope to 20 degrees increases the output
slightly to 718 kWhr per year.

The output is lower than a south facing roof, but not as low as you'ld
think.

I actually find that very hard to believe, especially since the whole
renewables industry pumps out lies and half truths all the time.

Bill

Andy Burns wrote:
Bill Taylor wrote:

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

Using Doncaster as a location (per kW
peak of installed capacity). Facing 10 degrees N of E
dropping the slope to 20 degrees increases the output
slightly to 718 kWhr per year.

For Doncaster, 20 degree slope and -100 degree azimuth, building
integrated rather than freestanding, all other settings left as default,
it gives me an annual output of 655kWh per 1kW of installed panels,
that's worth a measly 17p/day (at household rates, not FIT rates).
And if you consider the CO2 impact of making, transporting, installing
and maintaining the panels, the whole thing is making a net contribution
to CO2 emissions.

It's lucky that climate change is hardly affected at all by mankind's
folly, or we could be doing serious environmental damage with these
photo voltaics.

Bill