SolarPV and Electric Cars

listermint

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

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.

Yes and people will more and more want to be grid independent.

The technologies are now at a point where this is the direction people will want to go it's at a price point that makes sense battery technology​ is orientating towards homes.

This is what is happening, this is what will happen

Ecohead

I stumbled across this really good programme last night : Years of Living Dangerously -
A Race Against Time - David Letterman. People may already have seen it already.

David Letterman looks at the progress of solar power in India, while in the U.S. they investigate how the power companies in some states are killing the solar electricity sector - shocking stuff.

Evd-Burner

Ecohead wrote: »

I stumbled across this really good programme last night : Years of Living Dangerously -
A Race Against Time - David Letterman. People may already have seen it already.

David Letterman looks at the progress of solar power in India, while in the U.S. they investigate how the power companies in some states are killing the solar electricity sector - shocking stuff.

I've seen this before. It's unbelievable!

Shefwedfan

Ok, small update. Not sure if discussed here already. I got onto ESB Network. They say not there problem, they have nothing to do with FIT and it is up to the providers(Electric Ireland, Energia etc)...Don't want to go to them yet.

Sent letter to CER asking for there position as it includes in there main page desciption:
In a world where energy supply and prices are highly volatile, the mission of the CER, acting in the interests of consumers is to ensure that:

the environment is protected,

Will see if the useless feckers come back with anything.

I need to send something to EPA but will do that later on this week and get there stance. I want everything in official writing :P

Then will go to suppliers and ask there view of World. Next will be the politicians.....:p:p:p:p

Ecohead

Just going back to the discussion of roof mountings for PV. I have a question about the setback that maybe someone with experience could advise me on please.

The building regulations require a setback of 500 mm from wall and roof edges. I'm planning to put my panels on quite a long, one storey outbuilding. The roof space is interrupted by a few roof windows and part of it gets some afternoon shade so really I just have enough shade-free area for my 16 panels (1.64 m x 0.98) . The ridge to eave is 3.7 so I could, in theory, fit the panels 2x6 + 2x2 in portrait mode, 2 high, but I'd obviously contravene the regulations (leaving only about 210mm setback from the ridge and eave). I could install the panels in landscape mode (panels parallel to the rails) and increase the setback to about 370 mm but it obviously requires more rails and expense.

My question is, how important is the setback and the requirement of keeping to the regs?

Shefwedfan

CER passing the buck

Dear Neil,

Energy policy, including the REFIT rates and rules, is set by the Department of Communications Climate Action and Environment (DCCAE). For more information on the REFIT schemes, including the REFIT rates, please refer to the Department’s REFIT webpages. The CER’s role in relation to the PSO levy is to calculate and administer the PSO levy in accordance with Government policy and the governing PSO legislation. The CER has no discretion over the terms of the PSO subsidy schemes (including REFIT) and the associated levy amounts allowed.

For information regarding the CER’s role in protecting the customer, I refer you to the CER’s Strategic Plan 2014-18.

Kind Regards,
John

BoatMad

listermint wrote: »

Yes and people will more and more want to be grid independent.

The technologies are now at a point where this is the direction people will want to go it's at a price point that makes sense battery technology​ is orientating towards homes.

This is what is happening, this is what will happen

I see no great trend in a desire to be " grid independant" , outside a few " anti gov " dystopian types

its like saying you want to be " road independent "

Shefwedfan

These are the links.....

http://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/energy/topics/Renewable-Energy/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/energy/topics/Renewable-Energy/electricity/renewable-electricity-supports/Pages/Renewable-Electricity-Supports.aspx

unkel

Shefwedfan wrote: »

CER passing the buck

Classic Irish passing the buck. The Minister says it's up to CER. CER says it's up to the Minister :rolleyes:

Surely we / IEVOC can lobby a TD to ask a public Dail question about this?

BoatMad

Shefwedfan wrote: »

CER passing the buck

Dear Neil,

Energy policy, including the REFIT rates and rules, is set by the Department of Communications Climate Action and Environment (DCCAE). For more information on the REFIT schemes, including the REFIT rates, please refer to the Department’s REFIT webpages. The CER’s role in relation to the PSO levy is to calculate and administer the PSO levy in accordance with Government policy and the governing PSO legislation. The CER has no discretion over the terms of the PSO subsidy schemes (including REFIT) and the associated levy amounts allowed.

For information regarding the CER’s role in protecting the customer, I refer you to the CER’s Strategic Plan 2014-18.

Kind Regards,
John

not passing the buck, simply stating the case

unkel

Minister said it was up to CER

Kcross posted this last week, a direct quote from the Minister:

"Regarding the feed-in-tariff scheme you mentioned, Electric Ireland had been offering a micro-generation feed-in-tariff since February 2009. On 31 December 2014, the scheme closed to new customers but the scheme does remain open to existing customers until December 2016. No other electricity supplier had chosen to provide such a tariff, either to domestic or commercial customers though they have been invited to do so by the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER). Responsibility for the regulation of the electricity market is a matter for the CER which is an independent statutory body and would be outside my authority as Minister."

Pass the buck disgrace

BoatMad

unkel wrote: »

Minister said it was up to CER

Kcross posted this last week, a direct quote from the Minister:

"Regarding the feed-in-tariff scheme you mentioned, Electric Ireland had been offering a micro-generation feed-in-tariff since February 2009. On 31 December 2014, the scheme closed to new customers but the scheme does remain open to existing customers until December 2016. No other electricity supplier had chosen to provide such a tariff, either to domestic or commercial customers though they have been invited to do so by the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER). Responsibility for the regulation of the electricity market is a matter for the CER which is an independent statutory body and would be outside my authority as Minister."

Pass the buck disgrace

Yes that one is a pass the buck , the CER statement is a factual one. The issue is public policy , the previous FIT was as a result of tremendous pressure from the Green party in Government

antoinolachtnai

They are two different things really. One is regarding payment at market rates. The other is regarding a subsidised feed-in tariff.

The thing about the FIT is that electricity prices will go up, so whatever you got for FIT will be taken by higher electricity costs.

unkel

BoatMad wrote: »

The issue is public policy , the previous FIT was as a result of tremendous pressure from the Green party in Government

Agree entirely. The reason we have politicians is to make new things happen (legislate)

Deleted User wrote: »

The thing about the FIT is that electricity prices will go up

You keep saying that, but you've never qualified that statement. Electricity prices will go up at any level of FIT? It doesn't make sense.

antoinolachtnai

Deleted User wrote: »

The thing about the FIT is that electricity prices will go up, so whatever you got for FIT will be taken by higher electricity costs.

Well, all the people who don't have a PV investment will have to pay a higher electricity bill (in the form of a higher PSO levy) whilst the people with a PV investment will be receiving the extra money that is being collected through the feed-in tariff. PV owners would be be net gainers for sure. That's the whole point of a subsidy.

BoatMad

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Well, all the people who don't have a PV investment will have to pay a higher electricity bill (in the form of a higher PSO levy) whilst the people with a PV investment will be receiving the extra money that is being collected through the feed-in tariff. PV owners would be be net gainers for sure. That's the whole point of a subsidy.

thats the purpose of something like FIT, to incentivise change, not per se , to make solar PV a better financial bet

antoinolachtnai

For sure.

But Solar PV is not a 'financial bet'. It's just a plain money-loser. The subsidy makes it viable.

BoatMad

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

For sure.

But Solar PV is not a 'financial bet'. It's just a plain money-loser. The subsidy makes it viable.

its not a money loser, Ive seen enough financials from real life installs in ireland to see that they is a " payback", its just that its 10-12 years into the future

FIT is not going to make a huge difference to the financials , more so it has the ability to time shift the solar energy and therefore increases the effective panel utilisation

Thats the key FIT advantage , ( assuming the pricing makes sense of course )

But the generators dont want FIT and the retail suppliers dont want FIT, thats the issue

antoinolachtnai

We are talking about two different things here.

One is getting paid at market price for electricity generated.

The other is a subsidy from the PSO, in the form of a guaranteed price for electricity generated and exported to the grid.

The general thinking is that to make PV viable, you need the latter as well as the former.

The reason for this thinking is that PV electricity is low-value. You will get a very low price for this electricity and as time goes on the price will get lower and lower.

Suppliers would love a feed-in tariff.

You won't really get a payback on your PV panels over twelve years. Your calculations assume electricity prices will stay static. They won't. There will be cheap electricity from the grid at the times when PV is generating.

unkel

BoatMad wrote: »

Ive seen enough financials from real life installs in ireland to see that they is a " payback", its just that its 10-12 years into the future

I'd like to see some of those figures. For a typical household install, the figures just don't work. I'll do up some quick ones. Here goes:

8 panel 2kWh system - basic, no diverters to immersion, etc. €4k incl VAT installed. Generates at the very best 2000kWh per year (this is optimistic). If all of this is consumed (it won't) at full day rates (this is also not fair / too optimistic as you could probably use night rates for some of the solar you are using, but still say 2000 * 16 cents = €320). So not taking into account any maintenance / losses (again too optimistic) you get a pay back time of 4000 / 320 = 13 years

More realistic is that a third will be consumed at night rate, a third at day rate and a third is lost, so we're talking 667 * 16 + 667 * 7 + 667 * 0 = €153, so 4000 / 153 = 26 years. Still not allowing for repair / maintenance...

antoinolachtnai

That is also assuming that a kWh of electricity will cost 16c at 1pm in the afternoon in 2028. It won't. It will cost far less.

It also assumes the interest rate for the capital is free.

This is why people want a guaranteed FIT before they will invest.

In fairness, I don't think PV panels will need much repair/maintenance over 20 years, as long as the roof is sound. That is a great thing about PV (compared to solar water heating)

Gumbo

unkel wrote: »

I'd like to see some of those figures. For a typical household install, the figures just don't work. I'll do up some quick ones. Here goes:

8 panel 2kWh system - basic, no diverters to immersion, etc. €4k incl VAT installed. Generates at the very best 2000kWh per year (this is optimistic). If all of this is consumed (it won't) at full day rates (this is also not fair / too optimistic as you could probably use night rates for some of the solar you are using, but still say 2000 * 16 cents = €320). So not taking into account any maintenance / losses (again too optimistic) you get a pay back time of 4000 / 320 = 13 years

More realistic is that a third will be consumed at night rate, a third at day rate and a third is lost, so we're talking 667 * 16 + 667 * 7 + 667 * 0 = €153, so 4000 / 153 = 26 years. Still not allowing for repair / maintenance...

Just to clarify, you can get 2.3kw systems supplied and fitted for 4000 and that includes the immersion divertor. It's 8x290w panels.

Not sure how the figures are affected but I'm seriously considering it at present during my renovations.

Solar thermal I can get for 3700. That's the kingspan 30 tube system along with a stainless steel 300L cylinder.

Both systems supplied and fitted from companies that I have seen their work.

Shefwedfan

To follow on I found a doc on website linked above. I had a quick read. REFIT is available but only for MWh. This would tie in with my electrician who is doing a degree on all this stuff. I talked to him about SolarPV and he did mention that it was released but was only for commercial people


The REFIT is
granted in the form of a floor price tariff
, calculated per
Megawatt hour
(MWh)
of
renewable
electricity
produced and
exported to the
grid.
REFIT payments include a combination of
the following elements: technology cost,
a provision for a balancing cost (see further below),
and the
average annual
e
nergy
market payments.
REFIT is paid to
retail suppliers of electricity who
enter into
Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) with
generators of renewable energy
sources
.

unkel

kceire wrote: »

Just to clarify, you can get 2.3kw systems supplied and fitted for 4000 and that includes the immersion divertor. It's 8x290w panels.

Not sure how the figures are affected but I'm seriously considering it at present during my renovations.

That's pretty decent. The panels I had a look at were 275w, so roughly the same. With about 2000kWh output per year (100% south facing). I presume that price is installed all-in including VAT.

The immersion diverter means you won't lose the 667 units. Still these only compete with night rate (or even less if you have a high efficiency condensing gas boiler), so you save €50 per year with the diverter. So payback is down to 20 years

Of course a feed in tariff of say 16c will make all the difference. It means you make €320 a year and payback is 13 year (see above calculation)

If we had that FIT, I would go for that myself. 13 years is a long time, but I would feel good about doing it.

antoinolachtnai

Shefwedfan wrote: »

To follow on I found a doc on website linked above. I had a quick read. REFIT is available but only for MWh. This would tie in with my electrician who is doing a degree on all this stuff. I talked to him about SolarPV and he did mention that it was released but was only for commercial people

I think you will find that REFIT ended years ago.

listermint

unkel wrote: »

That's pretty decent. The panels I had a look at were 275w, so roughly the same. With about 2000kWh output per year (100% south facing). I presume that price is installed all-in including VAT.

The immersion diverter means you won't lose the 667 units. Still these only compete with night rate (or even less if you have a high efficiency condensing gas boiler), so you save €50 per year with the diverter. So payback is down to 20 years

Of course a feed in tariff of say 16c will make all the difference. It means you make €320 a year and payback is 13 year (see above calculation)

If we had that FIT, I would go for that myself. 13 years is a long time, but I would feel good about doing it.

With these calculations I've yet to see people take account of the seasonal nature of the power , i.e you make more power in summer and less in winter but you would have your heating on I'm winter anyway heating water for use but not in the summer at all.

Gumbo

unkel wrote: »

That's pretty decent. The panels I had a look at were 275w, so roughly the same. With about 2000kWh output per year (100% south facing). I presume that price is installed all-in including VAT.

The immersion diverter means you won't lose the 667 units. Still these only compete with night rate (or even less if you have a high efficiency condensing gas boiler), so you save €50 per year with the diverter. So payback is down to 20 years

Of course a feed in tariff of say 16c will make all the difference. It means you make €320 a year and payback is 13 year (see above calculation)

If we had that FIT, I would go for that myself. 13 years is a long time, but I would feel good about doing it.

Yes fully fitted by registered companies.
I'm beginning to think I may not install them and use the funds to better my insulation and air tightness!

It's just the moral green renewable that is like to have them.

Insulation is very expensive, making a house air tight and external insulation at current energy costs in my opinion makes no sense either. I'm all for saving energy but not at the very high cost of some of the alternatives.

Going EV was my greatest energy saver and best way to reduce emissions.

Solar PV only makes sense when and if a FIT is introduced and that's a big if.

unkel

Kceire you're building a new house iirc? Where you are going to live for many decades probably? In that case it makes a lot of sense to insulate the bejaysis out of it before doing anything else with your hard earned.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Insulation is very expensive, making a house air tight and external insulation at current energy costs in my opinion makes no sense either. I'm all for saving energy but not at the very high cost of some of the alternatives.

Going EV was my greatest energy saver and best way to reduce emissions.

Solar PV only makes sense when and if a FIT is introduced and that's a big if.

Insulation makes a huge amount of sense both for cost and comfort. There is literally no logic to what you are saying.

From your post above it can be construed that spending money on anything is pointless..

Yeah if new absolutely but not an older house.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah if new absolutely but not an older house.

This is hilarious, sorry but your opinion on this is all over the place.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Insulation makes a huge amount of sense both for cost and comfort. There is literally no logic to what you are saying.

From your post above it can be construed that spending money on anything is pointless..

External insulation is a rip off, then you can get problems with damp on older builds, read the relevant sections here on boards.

Air tightness adds to the expense because you most likely have to gut the house.

I'd rather sell the house and buy a more efficient one.

We moved into a 80s bungalow, insulated but could be better, will cost I reckon 30K to insulate it to passive standards or more, I'll go through maybe a tank of oil a year.....

The Oil stove is very efficient and it gives out tonnes of heat. And use the Gas in the sitting room which I might change for another oil stove they're so incredibly good. We don't like much heat in the bedrooms 18-19 degrees is easy to achieve.

I'll insulate when costs come down to sensible levels the same with Solar PV wind turbines etc. Until then I'll spend it on the little oil and electricity I need.

Changing from ICE to EV made the most sense and the fuel costs were costing me many times what it cost to heat the house.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

External insulation is a rip off, then you can get problems with damp on older builds, read the relevant sections here on boards.

Air tightness adds to the expense because you most likely have to gut the house.

I'd rather sell the house and buy a more efficient one.

We moved into a 80s bungalow, insulated but could be better, will cost I reckon 30K to insulate it to passive standards or more, I'll go through maybe a tank of oil a year.....

You have such a narrow focus on return on investment.

Have you considered the house location may be better than another location.

It makes a whole lot of sense to insulate a bungalow because it's easily done.
From a comfort., Cost and not to mention health perspective.

Damp? Are you basing this on terrible installations. I'd imagine yes.

Only in Ireland do we live in cold damp zero insulation houses , they laugh at us on the continent especially the poles.

Gumbo

I'm renovating and extending. So bare bones of the structure is accessible.
Insulating and adopting some air tightness elements should make the house more comfortable. The renewable element was a small portion of the works.

Worse case is I'll run a 6 Sq cable from the consumer unit and cap it off in the attic void to allow for future PV installation if I want. This is all that's required from the electrical side of things.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

This is hilarious, sorry but your opinion on this is all over the place.

Depends on what you want to spend, some people go mental and think it's saving them money.

The previous owners pumped the walls and insulated the attic, the cost in making the house passive would be tremendous and completely disruptive.

I could consider external insulation depending on cost, the last time I checked it would have taken decades to pay back, not interested in that.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

You have such a narrow focus on return on investment.

Have you considered the house location may be better than another location.

It makes a whole lot of sense to insulate a bungalow because it's easily done.
From a comfort., Cost and not to mention health perspective.

Damp? Are you basing this on terrible installations. I'd imagine yes.

Only in Ireland do we live in cold damp zero insulation houses , they laugh at us on the continent especially the poles.

I never suggested Ireland was unique in any way.

I've no issues with the current setup, it costs us some oil , big deal. Not bad for my mental health. What's worse for me is too much heat and no air flow. So I'd need a heat exchanger, more expense and my Partner feels the same regarding heat, we don't like too much heat.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Depends on what you want to spend, some people go mental and think it's saving them money.

The previous owners pumped the walls and insulated the attic, the cost in making the house passive would be tremendous and completely disruptive.

I could consider external insulation depending on cost, the last time I checked it would have taken decades to pay back, not interested in that.

Decades?

Bringing up a houses ber rating with triple glazing and external insulation on the outside can knock years of a mortgage through LTV reduction with equity in the house.

It's not one size fits all that you seem to paint it to be.

Efel oil stoves, I was amazed of the heat from these stoves and how efficient they are. I don't know anyone else with one, anyone I know with a stove is using much more expensive solid fuel, I can leave the oil stove on minimum setting and the kitchen/dining room and conservatory is very warm, almost too warm. You can't regulate solid fuel stoves but these are amazing.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Decades?

Bringing up a houses ber rating with triple glazing and external insulation on the outside can knock years of a mortgage through LTV reduction with equity in the house.

It's not one size fits all that you seem to paint it to be.

If I were to do all that it would add years to the mortgage !

When we bought the house energy wasn't our primary concern as I expect it isn't for the majority of people.

Our primary concern was location and the best insulated house in the world is of no value to us if it's in the middle of nowhere.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If I were to do all that it would add years to the mortgage !

When we bought the house energy wasn't our primary concern as I expect it isn't for the majority of people.

Our primary concern was location and the best insulated house in the world is of no value to us if it's in the middle of nowhere.

At the end of the day I can't spend your money.

But I refuse for you to portray the notion that putting money into insulation in a house is pointless which is what you tried to assert above.

Meanwhile I'll happily live in a properly insulated house that is not in the middle of nowhere which costs little heat is comfortable has ventilation and is a healthy place to be in rather than a draughty oil heated place that's cold when you go to bed and cold when you get up in the morning.

Ah come one now, because My house isn't air tight and isn't the best insulated place on the planet doesn't make it unhealthy and the oil isn't perfectly clean but it's a hell of a lot cleaner than solid fuel.

I know all those in well insulated houses feel great but I feel equally great it doesn't cost that much to heat and it's more than snug enough. And I didn't have to and don't have to spend thousands to achieve that comfort.

If energy costs rise to the point where I find it bothersome then I'll do something about it and hopefully insulation costs come down.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah come one now, because My house isn't air tight and isn't the best insulated place on the planet doesn't make it unhealthy and the oil isn't perfectly clean but it's a hell of a lot cleaner than solid fuel.

I know all those in well insulated houses feel great but I feel equally great it doesn't cost that much to heat and it's more than snug enough. And I didn't have to and don't have to spend thousands to achieve that comfort.

If energy costs rise to the point where I find it bothersome then I'll do something about it and hopefully insulation costs come down.

I was responding to your assertions about living in the middle of nowhere. You shouldn't talk in absolutes if you don't want them to be responded so.

As I said tis your money. But putting good insulation ventilation and windows into your home is good money spent.

Sensible.

Why would someone assume I've a cold house when the heat is off ? it takes some time to get to that level, it would be cold if I didn't turn it on in the morning in winter but I have the heat on so what's the big deal ?

In the milder months where I don't need the heating on I'll have the oil stove on in the kitchen at a low setting and the gas on in the sitting room for a few hrs. I don't care if the hall and bedroom isn't at 22 degrees.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

I was responding to your assertions about living in the middle of nowhere. You shouldn't talk in absolutes if you don't want them to be responded so.

As I said tis your money. But putting good insulation ventilation and windows into your home is good money spent.

Sensible.

It's reasonably insulated, has decent windows. But the thing with Windows is getting them fitted properly in Ireland is always a challenge and I hate PVC windows, they're never right after 5-10 years, always problems. Seals ware, due to expansion and contraction, same with the PVC doors, aluminium was certainly the best they usually are as good after 10-15 years as the day they went in and even though they might not be so efficient neither are PVC windows after a couple of years after the seals wear out and there's gaps after the expansion and contraction after some years use.

Anyway I was referring to our situation, we had the choice of moving into a concrete jungle housing estate or less efficient bungalow in the country, paying extra for heating is well worth it. There were no modern houses anywhere close for sale and building is not an option for us. Dealing with builders and the hardship of building is not for me. I know nothing about building and there's too many cowboys out there.

man_no_plan

I don't get the fascination with solar pv maybe its down to having solar hot water so the extra power would be wasted anyway as the days with most power will give hot water anyway.

As for the oil saving to heat the water, would the immersion on night rate not save as much without the investment.

Saying you have free hot water is only useful if you need it. Most days in summer we have plenty, last week we had too much, but even on a bright winters day the tank will be slightly warmed so we need less oil to bring it up to desired temp.

I'm all for renewables, have triple glazing, tonnes of insulation and solar hot water. Wouldn't use more than half a tank of oil in a year and its our only heat source for the house, about 280m.sq.

loyatemu

I agree with MadLad here, the figures for external insulation don't add up. Our neighbours had it done and it cost over 13K; we spend about 1.3K per year on gas, so if the insulation cut that usage by 50% it would take 20 years for the investment to pay off. If I could borrow the 13K at 0% over 20 years, fine I'd do it; but otherwise I'll wait.

Gumbo

man_no_plan wrote: »

I don't get the fascination with solar pv maybe its down to having solar hot water so the extra power would be wasted anyway as the days with most power will give hot water anyway.

As for the oil saving to heat the water, would the immersion on night rate not save as much without the investment.

Saying you have free hot water is only useful if you need it. Most days in summer we have plenty, last week we had too much, but even on a bright winters day the tank will be slightly warmed so we need less oil to bring it up to desired temp.

I'm all for renewables, have triple glazing, tonnes of insulation and solar hot water. Wouldn't use more than half a tank of oil in a year and its our only heat source for the house, about 280m.sq.

You have solar thermal, generally, people go one way or the other.
If I went thermal, I wouldn't go PV and vice Versa.