SolarPV and Electric Cars

unkel

Out of interest, would vandalism be covered in a typical home insurance? For both roof and ground mounted solar installs?

air

I've no idea but i'd be more concerned with theft than vandalism. It's an issue in the UK for solar farms. PV isn't widespread enough here yet for the scum to have caught on and there is little to no ground mounted panels in the country.

Calahonda52

air wrote: »

I've no idea but i'd be more concerned with theft than vandalism. It's an issue in the UK for solar farms. PV isn't widespread enough here yet for the scum to have caught on and there is little to no ground mounted panels in the country.

it's a big problem in Germany for roofs in remote farm buildings being stripped

cros13

KCross wrote: »

- If you have plenty lawn space that has unobstructed south facing view, would you recommend a ground system or roof?

I presume the frames for that are readily available? I presume a ground mount system would be much cheaper to install? Any gotchas?

- Would you get the same performance out of a ground mount system?

Pros and Cons to both.

Ground mount is almost always more expensive than roof mount
Ground mount can be easily and precisely pointed in the optimum direction at the optimum angle.
Ground mount is easier to access and easier to expand if you want to.
Ground mount may be more difficult to ensure is unshaded, even a little shade can have a drastic effect on production

Ground mounts themselves are often sold in kits, sized for panels from a particular manufacturer.

Ecohead wrote: »

The Schletter fitting instructions imply all courses of slates above the hook have to be stripped, whereas the Genius system only requires the slates around the hook to be stripped and uses "hall" hooks to hang them again. So the Genius system looks quicker but means you might have three adjacent slates above the rail hook all held by these hall hooks. I'm not a roofer but it doesn't appear that secure. Still, this is the system constructpv sells so it must be working satisfactorily here.

I've only used two roof-mounting systems myself. Schletter and Ubiquiti.

BoatMad

unkel wrote: »

Are we all preparing ourselves for the advent of the FIT?

or wishful thinking

Ecohead

Don't suppose anyone here has a MC4 crimping tool they no longer need and/or 6mm cable and would like to sell?

Cheers.

air

I've loads of 4mm cable, not sure why you'd want 6mm unless you have huge run from inverter to the panels? Typical panels max out at 8A or so, the losses on 4sq will be negligible up to quite a distance.

Ecohead

air wrote: »

I've loads of 4mm cable, not sure why you'd want 6mm unless you have huge run from inverter to the panels? Typical panels max out at 8A or so, the losses on 4sq will be negligible up to quite a distance.

Cool. Well, I hadn't researched the cable size to be honest. One of the panels I just bought is for an off-grid 12v battery project and the supplier only offered 6mm so that's why I suggested that (I didn't buy it as they were expensive for the cable). I had a look at the losses for my grid-tie system and, like you say, there isn't much to be saved by going with 6mm.

As for the 12v battery system, with a high voltage panel and a MPPT charge controller I think the 4mm cable should be fine too. With a 12V panel and PWM charge controller the 6mm cable might make more sense.

KCross

KCross wrote: »

Whats your point?
They haven't pleaded with the country to cut back on Christmas lights in recent times so how is it relevant moving forward?

We have additional interconnections and additional renewables, Solar farms etc being added so what is your point? Are you saying blackouts are imminent due to EV's or something because thats not the case if you believe the ESB Networks report.

I missed this post....

The use of LED lights has greatly cut power consumption.

I was told by someone in the ESB that the real reason for the ESB supplying 3.3 Kw chargers is because they don't want too many people stressing the local transformers, the supply is simply not designed for it.

The generating capacity is there for a lot of electric vehicles but delivering it is another matter.

KCross

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I missed this post....

The use of LED lights has greatly cut power consumption.

I was told by someone in the ESB that the real reason for the ESB supplying 3.3 Kw chargers is because they don't want too many people stressing the local transformers, the supply is simply not designed for it.

The generating capacity is there for a lot of electric vehicles but delivering it is another matter.

That doesn't add up though. 2000 free 3.3kW charge points vs 6.6kW won't make any difference in the years ahead as everyone will have to pay for their own charge point and nothing stopping you putting in a 7kW charge point even more so if that becomes the standard charger in new cars, which it probably will be.

I just don't buy your argument. I presume you're putting a 7kW charge point in your new house?!

Yes, I'll be installing a 32 amp charger before I change the Leaf.

You don't have to buy my argument what so ever, the ESB will install as many 16 amp units they can get away with. I'm hoping the ESB will upgrade before this becomes an Issue which will probably take some years.

The argument from the ESB that the house wiring can't take it doesn't hold up that's for sure, the difference in cost between the 16 and 32 amp charge points is minimal so there is really no reason why the ESB can't install 32 amp charge points at the EV owners request.

cros13

There will be a good amount of work required on the low voltage network on the way to mass EV adoption. But it's not that different from an extra housing estate going up in a town in terms of scope.

No it's not that different however, the ESB are trying to put off upgrades for as long as possible, they can't prevent a housing estate being built but they can try prevent upgrades by installing lower power EVSE's.

My work place is requested to take part of production off the grid at certain peak times and fire up the generators.............

KCross

Deleted User wrote: »

The argument from the ESB that the house wiring can't take it doesn't hold up that's for sure, the difference in cost between the 16 and 32 amp charge points is minimal so there is really no reason why the ESB can't install 32 amp charge points at the EV owners request.

I dont think ESB said the house wiring cant take it. Thats something that has to be assessed in each house. A modern house wont have an issue. A 1970s bungalow could be very different. You also have to assess if there are electric showers, heat pumps etc.

I know ESB could have been more flexible and offered a 32A option at the customers expense but I suppose they decided they didnt want the hassle for their free charge point program.

The point is, I dont believe it was for issues around supply. You can install one yourself so obviously supply isnt an issue otherwise electric showers would also be banned!

unkel

KCross wrote: »

I know ESB could have been more flexible and offered a 32A option at the customers expense

There is no expense for a 32A system except a few euro for 6mm2 cable instead of 4mm2

The ABL charger can do both 16A and 32A (flashable) and an 16A RCBO costs the same as a 32A RCBO

They were being deliberately difficult, like soviet officials saying "no!", using defunct rhetoric that I might have an electric shower (I don't and if I did, I would have installed a priority switch) and just saying no. I was talking to the main man in ESB ecars while the installers were doing the work in my home. ESB wouldn't even let the installer use a 32A RCBO!!!

So you can understand why the installer is reluctant to go 32A, basically they can not claim the standard fee from ESB and they would have to charge the full whack to the customer. This is not Nigel Daly's fault (ESB ecars main contractor). It is solely the ESB ecars fault. This needs to be said as the perception is out there that ND overcharges. Which for a basic 32A install is not the case.

ESB are not helping the cause and that's what I told them. Their salaries and bonuses should be linked to EV uptake, they would get up and do something then, no doubt.

KCross

unkel wrote: »

There is no expense for a 32A system except a few euro for 6mm2 cable instead of 4mm2

Not quite true. The upgraded cable and RCBO, as you said, are not that much more expensive.

The "expense" is the site assessment and priority switches etc that is required for a 32A which will vary alot between houses.

eCars presumably have a set fee they pay the contractor to install a 16A charge point and they just want to stick with that and have no messing with site assessments and priority switches etc. They can install a 16A charge point without looking at anything really. If they provide a 32A charge point they will have to stand over it as a 32A and all that goes with that and I guess they just didnt want to do that for the free program. They have no incentive to give 32A. Its a free install so we cant complain really!


However, they could have let the contractor negotiate that with the customer rather than a blanket "ban".

unkel

KCross wrote: »

Not quite true. The upgraded cable and RCBO, as you said, are not that much more expensive.

The "expense" is the site assessment and priority switches etc that is required for a 32A which will vary alot between houses.

Not true yourself

You obviously haven't seen the form you have to fill in when you apply for a free chargepoint. You have to fill in if you have an electric shower or not. And loads of other things. Presumably if you are not 100% conform the list, you pay extra if extra work is needed.

There is no expense to ESB of any site assessment. That expense is for the contractor. Who gets paid for it from the standard fee ESB pay them. If your site is not conform all the tick boxes for the free install (like not having an electric shower, install point not further than 5m or whatever it is from CU, etc.), then you pay (the contractor) extra for the standard install

My situation was 100% standard, thus I got a 100% free install. And because I was 100% standard, my home would have been completely ok for a 32A or 16A, it makes no difference (once you don't have electric shower, etc.)

And they do let the contractor negotiate with the customer for a 32A. But then they won't pay the contractor. So the upgrade is full price of a 32A install, not the price of an upgrade

As I said, 100% ESB stalinist policies, not helping the spread of EV at all. Not a case of covering their arses, the form already takes care of that and the contractor is the police officer who verifies the form was filled in truthfully.

KCross

KCross wrote: »

I dont think ESB said the house wiring cant take it. Thats something that has to be assessed in each house. A modern house wont have an issue. A 1970s bungalow could be very different. You also have to assess if there are electric showers, heat pumps etc.

I know ESB could have been more flexible and offered a 32A option at the customers expense but I suppose they decided they didnt want the hassle for their free charge point program.

The point is, I dont believe it was for issues around supply. You can install one yourself so obviously supply isnt an issue otherwise electric showers would also be banned!

Yes that's the spin story , the house wiring. But I finally got it out of them , they did say it could become a problem with local supply if enough people charge at the higher rate of power.

Even the ESB man that installed my dual meter said they wouldn't be able to upgrade my single phase supply without another transformer.

And not only that, near my mothers there is a new house being built and because they're installing a heat pump they needed an upgraded single phase supply and they had to install 2 new transformers on 2 poles and feed new cabling.

So I fully believe that they will upgrade as they need but will try to keep power consumption low as possible but it doesn't make sense with so few electric cars scattered across the Island and as you say people can install what they want after.

unkel

unkel wrote: »

And they do let the contractor negotiate with the customer for a 32A. But then they won't pay the contractor. So the upgrade is full price of a 32A install, not the price of an upgrade

I practically begged for a 32 amp EVSE and they would not entertain the idea, they said not going to happen and I offered to pay extra and was told no.

When I contacted the contractor who installed it not to mention names , to upgrade it to 32 amps he gave me some crap about it being a bad idea then he contacted the ESB who then called me up to lecture me about the dangers what a Prick !

KCross

unkel wrote: »

Not true yourself

You obviously haven't seen the form you have to fill in when you apply for a free chargepoint. You have to fill in if you have an electric shower or not. And loads of other things. Presumably if you are not 100% conform the list, you pay extra if extra work is needed.

There is no expense to ESB of any site assessment. That expense is for the contractor. Who gets paid for it from the standard fee ESB pay them. If your site is not conform all the tick boxes for the free install (like not having an electric shower, install point not further than 5m or whatever it is from CU, etc.), then you pay (the contractor) extra for the standard install

My situation was 100% standard, thus I got a 100% free install. And because I was 100% standard, my home would have been completely ok for a 32A or 16A, it makes no difference (once you don't have electric shower, etc.)

And they do let the contractor negotiate with the customer for a 32A. But then they won't pay the contractor. So the upgrade is full price of a 32A install, not the price of an upgrade

As I said, 100% ESB stalinist policies, not helping the spread of EV at all. Not a case of covering their arses, the form already takes care of that and the contractor is the police officer who verifies the form was filled in truthfully.

I've seen the form but cant remember the detail of it now.

To my knowledge you dont need anything special (priority switches etc) for a standard install regardless of whether you have an electric shower or not.

A 16A charge point is only marginally above your standard 13A socket of which you have loads in the house. So, ticking the "I have an electric shower" box is meaningless really. Put another way, if you said you had an electric shower would your install have been any different? I dont think it would. It only matters when you go to 32A., which they are not supplying.

The only extras they can really charge you for on a 16A install is if you have a long run from the CU to the EVSE and more cable is required.

Other than that I agree that eCars should have been more flexible. They went with the easiest option.

KCross

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes that's the spin story , the house wiring. But I finally got it out of them , they did say it could become a problem with local supply if enough people charge at the higher rate of power.

So you think house wiring is irrelevant and its all down to supply?!
Fair enough, I think thats you spinning not the ESB.

The ESB report admits that localised upgrades will be required as more EV's come on the road but we are a very long way from that point and this free EVSE program was only for the first 2000 anyway so largely irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. Once the 2000 are gone you can install all the 32A charge points you like without saying anything to the ESB.

If 3 or 4 people on the one transformer happened to get a free EVSE they might have an issue. Other than that its purely down to them simply not wanting to complicate the installs. They wanted a simple, fixed cost for the 2000 free EVSE's.

Deleted User wrote: »

Even the ESB man that installed my dual meter said they wouldn't be able to upgrade my single phase supply without another transformer.

And not only that, near my mothers there is a new house being built and because they're installing a heat pump they needed an upgraded single phase supply and they had to install 2 new transformers on 2 poles and feed new cabling.

There is nothing unusual about that. The network isnt uniform everywhere and upgrades to transformers are required here and there and will continue to be the case when more and more EV's come on the road. The ESB report says as much.

I'll give you another example.... I built a new house in 2012 and have the upgraded supply of 16kVA and a heat pump and no new transformer was required for me and its shared with a few other houses. It just depends on where you are and what happens to be in place already. If its old, they upgrade and if not they dont.


I think you think there is some conspiracy theory going on or we are about to have blackouts or something. Its just an economic decision. They are giving away free charge points and they want to keep the scheme simple and have a fixed cost. Its what any sane executive would do in that case.

Lol o.k, believe what you want........

air

It would have been simpler to just add €500 to the SEAI grant and let people sort the charge points themselves.

KCross

Deleted User wrote: »

Lol o.k, believe what you want........

That's a well thought out response!

You really need to read the ESB report which details how the network will handle EV's into the future. Unless you think thats all spin as well?

antoinolachtnai

I don't know, I wonder about the ESB figures. They seem to all be predicated on a lot of charging going on at the same time.

Based on an average driving distance of 15000 km, and 5km/kWh, is 3000 kWh per car per year, or 8kWh per day, or less than 1kWh per hour (i.e., 1kW) on average. Even if everybody decided to get an EV, that seems manageable. EV's don't all have to be fast-charged at the same time, any more than petrol cars need to go to the petrol station at the same time. There has to be provision to manage what time people charge at of course, so you don't have everybody charging at the same moment, but that seems pretty feasible. You could go in a 'queue', the same way you 'queue' at the petrol station at busy times, although of course you don't have to sit there in the forecourt, and you can skip the queue if you really need to. It should be a lot easier to manage than electric showers, for instance, which a lot of people are going to want to run at more or less the same time.

For sure, you are going to have to reinforce here and there, especially on the rural network.

unkel

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

3000 kWh per car per year, or 8kWh per day, or less than 1kWh per hour (i.e., 1kW) on average. Even if everybody decided to get an EV, that seems manageable.

+1

And to strengthen your point (using an argument mad_lad made the other day about the general reduction in household electricity use because of low energy bulbs and applicances):

The average household uses 5300 kWh per year. This is the figure still used but no doubt it's a lot lower. I checked my own consumption (larger than average house, family of 5, all low energy bulbs, but lots of appliances and we are not energy frugal) - 3500 kWh last year. No doubt were we at or above the national average 10 years ago

So say the average house goes from 5300 kWh per year (2004) - zero EVs, to 3500 + EV of 3000 = 6500 kWh per year (2024) - 100% EV. This is obviously not going to be a problem

Conclusion: ESB is talking sh1te.

And any substantial increase in electricity consumption is going to be at night time when electricity it cheap and which makes it a lot easier to balance the grid between peek and trough

An with a relatively small investment, the government could promote solar PV, so any increase during the day can be covered by micro generation. There's about 10 years time to make this work slowly as most people will starting to own EVs

antoinolachtnai

The 5300 figure is a 'mean'. It is skewed by a small number of very large consumers. The median is around 4300 I believe.

EV's at every home would bring the mean capacity up by 3000, to about 8300. For the whole country that would be about 6 terawatt hours (3000kWh*2 million) But there is a bucket of capacity in the electricity system, easily 15 TWh in the residential end of things.

unkel

And like we both said, EVs will be mainly charged at night, when there are no shortages. If Ireland went from 0.1% EV (present) to 80% EV in 10 years time, there would be no capacity problems at all and this is obviously a wildly optimisic scenario for EV uptake

Throw the 200 million we're now paying in fines towards FIT and subsidies on PV and the government would be laughing from a financial point of view. Great for the environment and the only ones crying would be those in the middle east and the car makers that can't keep up

antoinolachtnai

Well there is a problem, in that if a couple of people on the same street try to charge at 32 amps at the same time, even at night, you will have some problems. The demand has to be managed and you need smart meters and load switches to do it.

Calahonda52

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Well there is a problem, in that if a couple of people on the same street try to charge at 32 amps at the same time, even at night, you will have some problems. The demand has to be managed and you need smart meters and load switches to do it.

Which is why I find it surprising that e-cars have no interest in keeping track of the second hand car home charging installs, many of which are 32A.

antoinolachtnai

At current scale, it doesn't matter much.

antoinolachtnai

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

At current scale, it doesn't matter much.

Not at the current scale it doesn't, now throw in two electric cars that one has to charge at 7 Kw and the other can make do with 3.5 Kw.........

Generating the power probably won't be much of an issue, not now but everyone will want to charge at off peak rates when they can and while they're using the night rate they'll probably have the washing machine/dryer/dishwasher going at the same time.

2 EV households may have no choice to go with 16 amp EVSE's because even 1x 7 Kw and 1x 3.5 Kw (10.5 Kw) will be close to the max of a domestic supply , you probably couldn't use the washing machine on anything other than a cold wash if all 3 are going at the same time.

Upgrading single phase domestic supplied in housing estates and anywhere else might be possible the loads are a huge extra strain on the local ESB network and well more than any Xmas lights could ever have used.

antoinolachtnai

Well, even if you drive 60km/day, you only need 12 kWh or so of overnight charge. At 32A/230V, that's only about 100 minutes of charging. So there is no need to ever charge two cars at the same time, or even for more than 4 or 5 cars on the same street to be on at the same time.

Adding a load of heat pumps would certainly make the whole thing more exciting ... but still, there is a lot of overnight capacity.

And demand and wholesale electricity cost drops off after 9pm. You don't really need to wait until midnight. (have a look at https://www.eire.com/electricity-price/) That is more of an artefact of the way that distribution is charged for and the way the metering is set up really.

KCross

unkel wrote: »

+1

And to strengthen your point (using an argument mad_lad made the other day about the general reduction in household electricity use because of low energy bulbs and applicances):

The average household uses 5300 kWh per year. This is the figure still used but no doubt it's a lot lower. I checked my own consumption (larger than average house, family of 5, all low energy bulbs, but lots of appliances and we are not energy frugal) - 3500 kWh last year. No doubt were we at or above the national average 10 years ago

So say the average house goes from 5300 kWh per year (2004) - zero EVs, to 3500 + EV of 3000 = 6500 kWh per year (2024) - 100% EV. This is obviously not going to be a problem

Conclusion: ESB is talking sh1te.

And any substantial increase in electricity consumption is going to be at night time when electricity it cheap and which makes it a lot easier to balance the grid between peek and trough

An with a relatively small investment, the government could promote solar PV, so any increase during the day can be covered by micro generation. There's about 10 years time to make this work slowly as most people will starting to own EVs

You are bang on the average for an urban user. I've posted official ESB 2015 figures here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102466419&postcount=25

3500kWh/yr is roughly the domestic average now.

unkel

So the government / ESB have about 10-20 years to get ready for that figure to double (while much more evenly spread if they wish to steer that with night / day rate differentials and smart metering

Should be easy enough to gear up to that over such a long time. Particularly if you get the average household to offset their extra 3000kWh per year with the production of solar for some or most of that

antoinolachtnai

The solar doesn't necessarily help that much really, because you can't predict it and it just isn't there a significant part of the year. What actually helps more is the fact that the batteries of cars could themselves be used to reinforce the grid at the times of highest demand.

antoinolachtnai

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Well, even if you drive 60km/day, you only need 12 kWh or so of overnight charge. At 32A/230V, that's only about 100 minutes of charging. So there is no need to ever charge two cars at the same time, or even for more than 4 or 5 cars on the same street to be on at the same time.

Adding a load of heat pumps would certainly make the whole thing more exciting ... but still, there is a lot of overnight capacity.

And demand and wholesale electricity cost drops off after 9pm. You don't really need to wait until midnight. (have a look at https://www.eire.com/electricity-price/) That is more of an artefact of the way that distribution is charged for and the way the metering is set up really.

Yeah sure, you can stagger the charge times but who's really going to sit down and calculate this out and are people going to find this acceptable ?

Probably, what will happen is that people will go to fast chargers to make up any shortfall.

Generation capacity is a lesser issue in my opinion, delivering it is another matter entirely.

antoinolachtnai

It certainly is an interesting issue. Maybe you could charge now and pay between 40c and 80c a unit depending on time of day, or you could wait two hours and pay 8c a unit. It could all be scheduled pretty automatically and you set your preference using an app or whatever.

If the car has a 60 kWh battery, why would you be worried what time it charges? You'll nearly always have enough in the car to tide you over for a day or two.

The alternative is to upgrade the whole distribution network and either EV users can pay an extra couple of hundred euros a year or everybody pays an extra hundred euros or so a year.

antoinolachtnai

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If the car has a 60 kWh battery, why would you be worried what time it charges? You'll nearly always have enough in the car to tide you over for a day or two.

Yes but people are lazy , they'll want to plug in as little as possible. So they could very well need 50-55 Kwh at any one time or yes, they could indeed plug in every night and need up to 12 Kwh or less.

Don't forget the 2 EV household. It's still a lot of extra demand on the local network even with one EV at 7 Kw.

antoinolachtnai

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes but people are lazy , they'll want to plug in as little as possible. So they could very well need 50-55 Kwh at any one time or yes, they could indeed plug in every night and need up to 12 Kwh or less.

Don't forget the 2 EV household. It's still a lot of extra demand on the local network even with one EV at 7 Kw.

Even if everybody waits until the battery is empty to charge, they aren't all going to be empty on the same day and the total amount they will draw over the course of a month or so will be the same.


For sure some houses will have two EVs. But the second one can charge during the day when there is PV on the grid. Even now, there is a fair part of the day when electricity just isn't that expensive.

It is easy (for me at least) to see how you will pay a different price for the charge depending on how much 'convenience' you need.

Why do people think that everyone who has 2 cars means one of them is the "second car" for school trips etc. We are a two car household and non of them are the run a bout, in fact my Leaf does the most mileage than the Cee'd Diesel estate.

And very few homes have Solar PV and are unlikely to in Ireland as there is no FIT and the Grid is beyond capacity for wind energy. There is simply no capacity for micro generation or Commercial Solar either. We have far too much wind energy and a huge imbalance on our grid, On days it's not windy we've far too little green energy when we could do with lots of Solar and micro generation, when the wind blows we'd have too much energy to dump and who do you prioritise on the grid ? yes, the big commercial generators for whom the tax payer has to support whether the wind blows or not and nothing is giving for micro generation.

I'm not convinced the local Grid can take lots of people charging at night, or at the same time, regardless of charging habits it's a lot of extra power, generation is no Issue but delivery can very well be. But we'll have to wait and see, it's many years away anyway before even half the People in an estate has at least one EV never mind two and never mind everyone in the estate, I'm sure the ESB will be monitoring power usage, hopefully.

antoinolachtnai

Not all of the second cars are runabouts, but some of them are.

There is no FIT because there is no market for afternoon electricity that is likely to be interrupted. If there were, then there might be a feed-in tariff.

Your description of how the grid is prioritised is not correct. Wind is always prioritised. The wind needs to be curtailed if more than 70 percent of the energy is coming from wind, or constrained, if there isn't enough demand on the grid near the wind farm.

Microgeneration isn't a very effective way for the government to invest in generation, by and large. You can build a big wind farm or solar farm for a much lower unit cost than a load of small ones.

KCross

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Microgeneration isn't a very effective way for the government to invest in generation, by and large. You can build a big wind farm or solar farm for a much lower unit cost than a load of small ones.

Can you elaborate on the maths of that?

I don't think anyone expects the government to pay for our Solar PV just pay for the kWh's returned to the grid at a reasonable price. What that price is, I don't know. The capital cost is borne by the house owner with no cost to the state.

I presume large scale Solar PV farms don't come cheap to the state and they get a guaranteed price. Why can't domestic FiT be the same just a lower value paid. That would surely be a win win for everyone?

I know there are issues around grid balancing and predicting what domestic Solar PV can return to the grid but isn't that the same with a large Solar PV farm?

I'm just not getting why big Solar PV farms are considered OK but domestic Solar PV via FiT is not? Can you explain?

unkel

^^^

You took the words right out of my mouth KCross

Deleted User wrote: »

There is simply no capacity for micro generation or Commercial Solar

Good news today

ESB and Bord na Móna in €500m solar venture to power 150,000 homes

Linky

KCross

unkel wrote: »

ESB and Bord na Móna in €500m solar venture to power 150,000 homes

Linky

Anyone know if the commercial Solar PV panels themselves are any different to domestic panels? Are they larger, more efficient, more expensive or are they all the same just that a farm has more scale and more smarts in how it delivers to the grid?

n97 mini

unkel wrote: »

^^^

You took the words right out of my mouth KCross



Good news today

ESB and Bord na M?na in ?500m solar venture to power 150,000 homes

Linky

Hmm. I'm a bit sceptical. BnM trying to save their bacon as they know their time is running out? Would a commercial company get involved in this? BnM getting involved is a bit like Irish Rail getting involved.

Solar farms might be better suited to barren deserts, or barren rooves of houses, than to peat bogs.

antoinolachtnai

KCross wrote: »

Anyone know if the commercial Solar PV panels themselves are any different to domestic panels? Are they larger, more efficient, more expensive or are they all the same just that a farm has more scale and more smarts in how it delivers to the grid?

It is just more economic to do at scale. Have a look at the threads here and on renewable energy. Putting a small number of panels on individual homes is messy and slow to do. A large proportion of the money goes on mountings, flashings and installation costs. If you can connect vast numbers of panels in one place and at one time, it just works out a lot less expensive per kW.

It doesn't really have any more smarts in how it delivers to the grid. It has a bigger grid connection, sure, and might be connected to the transmission network directly, and it has a smart meter, and there might be real time telemetry, but it isn't really all that different in principle to what you might put on your roof.

antoinolachtnai

KCross wrote: »

Can you elaborate on the maths of that?

I don't think anyone expects the government to pay for our Solar PV just pay for the kWh's returned to the grid at a reasonable price. What that price is, I don't know. The capital cost is borne by the house owner with no cost to the state.

A guaranteed FIT is just a subsidy. They don't actually give you a cheque for half the cost of the panels, but they might as well. I suppose a truly curmudgeonly government could argue that if you didn't contribute your own money on the panels, you could be putting the money into the PSO, and we would all get more carbon reduction per euro spent.

I presume large scale Solar PV farms don't come cheap to the state and they get a guaranteed price. Why can't domestic FiT be the same just a lower value paid. That would surely be a win win for everyone?

The 'State' doesn't pay for any of this. It all has to come out of the PSO charge that is on your bill.

The government doesn't really want the PSO to rise that is why they are reticent about the whole thing. Energy bills are considered politically sensitive. The government doesn't want to make commitments which will require the electricity bill of voters to go up.

There is no subsidised FIT as things stand for any sort of solar at the moment (as far as I know, BnM/ESB seem optimistic, but I don't know what you can read into that).

A subsidised/guaranteed FIT with a lower value (matched to the cost of utility-scale solar) still won't make PV attractive for households as an economic proposition so it won't have enough uptake to really make any difference. It will be an allowance, sure, but it won't' really in itself get large volumes of people to do anything that they wouldn't have done otherwise. (Incidentally, existing solar panels or panels installed to meet building regulations would logically not benefit from a subsidised/guaranteed FIT.)

There are practical problems with metering which have to be solved too. At present, you cannot pay for feed-in on a DG1 or DG2 (domestic) MPRN. The system doesn't allow it, even if you do get one of those pricey meters installed. This is ridiculous I know. To get the changes through, the government would really need to get behind it and the FIT would have to be big enough to make domestic PV economic.

I know there are issues around grid balancing and predicting what domestic Solar PV can return to the grid but isn't that the same with a large Solar PV farm?

I'm just not getting why big Solar PV farms are considered OK but domestic Solar PV via FiT is not? Can you explain?

You are right, the issues are very similar. Realistically, the issues are worse for utility solar, because the scale is so much bigger. I suppose the benefit for the system operator is that with large scale operations, the operator can see instantly via telemetry that generation has reduced on a particular farm. With domestic PV, the system operator is left guessing what happened if there is a fluctuation in one area of the country. But this problem could be overcome.

In practice, I think a large practical issue is that the metering arrangements at the moment just don't lend themselves to domestic micro generation at all. (I do think this might have to change, for a load of reasons apart from PV.)

Personally, if it were up to me, I would not give any subsidy for PV unless and until corresponding loads are provided to take up the new generation at the times it is available, and which can be switched off centrally when the sun goes away.

listermint

Localised microgeneration is the future for everything be it electricity or food.

It won't be held back by the likes of ESB , it will be pushed into faces by the likes of Tesla.

Get on the train or get left behind

antoinolachtnai

I don't know, storage would have to be an awful lot cheaper in order to make it viable to really localise electricity production. Renewables are making everybody more and more dependent on grid interconnection. Electricity production is getting more and more internationalised and globalised. The production of PV panels and batteries is very much a global game with massive factories.