Solar Panels

[JohnD]

We can't see it, then? Is it a generally accepted figure within the industry?

I wonder what the cost would be to exchange a worn gearbox for a recon one. Less than the cost of building a new windmill, I bet.

 

[JohnD]

Here's another way to make money out of solar energy. 6% dividend pa on 'Foresight Solar Fund' shares. Tempting?

http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/n...o_raise_30_million_to_power_acquisition_drive

IMO you're less likely to lose your shirt with http://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/summary?s=NG.:LSE

Investing (or working) in the electricity industry is a risky business, full of peaks and troughs, with the government having no stable policy and turning it upside down at whim. Which is why investment has been too low and we have insufficient capacity, and are trying to shovel money down EDF's throat with guarantees to pay them more than the market price.



I see Solar Foresight Fund Ltd http://markets.ft.com/data/investment-trust/tearsheet/summary?s=FSFL:LSE but Financial data is not shown

 

[JohnW2]

I believe that gearbox wear and loss of field strength from the magnets account for most of the reduction in efficiency. Note that it is efficiency, not output power, so a need for increased maintenance would reduce the efficiency

I don't fully understand how these calculations are being done. The ongoing running costs (which hopefully will still provide for a 'net benefit') must include a significant element for maintenance, and that needs to be averaged over time (the full cost-effective service life of the equipment).

When you say that the efficiency may "fall by half in 7-10 years", does that assume that no maintenance is 'charged' (bookwise) for the first 7-10 years, and that the cost of major maintenance undertake in years 7, 8, 9 or 10 is all ascribed to one year? If so, in terms of averages the initial 'efficiency' figure would be unrealistically optimistic and that in the year of major maintenance unrealistically pessimistic.

If the 'efficiency' is calculated sensibly, over the full anticipated service life of the equipment, then it would not deteriorate with time as a result of the need for (anticipated) maintenance.

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

John, I agree with you. These figures are nonsense. The cost of installing the complete pylon is way larger than the cost of replacing a small part of the installation.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Rightly or wrongly, Tories cutting the FIT subsidy have murdered this as a domestic innovation for the forseeable future.

Firstly - rightly.

The original FIT rates were akin to putting a levy on bicycles in the 1920s to subsidise the cost of motor cars in the hope that more people would buy them and prices would fall.

Encouragement of non-fossil generating technology by governments via help with R&D budgets, tax breaks for manufacturers and operators etc are fine, if deemed necessary. But not making people who don't have a roof pay more for their electricity so that those better off than them can be paid to put a tiny amount of PV capacity into erratic use.

Ever noticed how the talk is almost always about what ROI am I going to get, not about being environmentally conscious?​

Secondly, surely reducing FIT payments makes it more desirable to be able to store your excess, not less?

 

[stillp]

The ongoing running costs (which hopefully will still provide for a 'net benefit') must include a significant element for maintenance, and that needs to be averaged over time (the full cost-effective service life of the equipment).

Why?

When you say that the efficiency may "fall by half in 7-10 years", does that assume that no maintenance is 'charged' (bookwise) for the first 7-10 years, and that the cost of major maintenance undertake in years 7, 8, 9 or 10 is all ascribed to one year?

Like you I'm guessing, but I had assumed that the annual cost of maintenance is charged to each year in which it occurs. I'm not saying that the efficiency will reduce by half, I'm reporting that an interested party has quoted that figure.

 

[stillp]

The cost of installing the complete pylon is way larger than the cost of replacing a small part of the installation.

I don't see the relevance. The funding available for installation far exceeds the funding for maintenance.

Maybe the projected loss of efficiency includes an allowance for the time the generator is shut down? I remember reading somewhere (perhaps E & T) that the payments received by the operators during periods of zero demand are dependent on no maintenance being carried out while they're shut down, just like the operators of solar farms cannot grow crops or graze animals in the fields full of solar panels.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

The funding available for installation far exceeds the funding for maintenance.

Where on earth does that come from?

 

[stillp]

Where on earth does that come from?

In this case, the Scottish Government I assume.

 

[JohnW2]

Why?

Because, IMO, that's the only sensible approach. If I buy a new car, I'm interested in an estimate of the likely maintenance costs over the period of time I intend to keep it. To base my financial planning on the 'initial' maintenance costs during the first few months (probably zero) would just be plain silly!

Like you I'm guessing, but I had assumed that the annual cost of maintenance is charged to each year in which it occurs.

As above, I do not personally think that's a very helpful approach. To say that the 'efficiency' has suddenly plummeted (for just a year) in, say, year 7 or year 10 (due to major maintenance in that year) does not really help one to understand anything about the overall long-term situation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Because, IMO, that's the only sensible approach. If I buy a new car, I'm interested in an estimate of the likely maintenance costs over the period of time I intend to keep it.

But you will probably assume that the cost of ownership will rise significantly as it ages and more bits wear out, so you'll take that into account when planning how long to keep it.

As above, I do not personally think that's a very helpful approach.

I believe that the grants are payable annually. Take it up with Ms Sturgeon.

 

[JohnD]

But you will probably assume that the cost of ownership will rise significantly as it ages and more bits wear out, so you'll take that into account when planning how long to keep it.

Although it will have repaid the capital cost of purchase and installation within a few years, after which the proceeds feed into your profit.

 

[wv62]

just like the operators of solar farms cannot grow crops or graze animals in the fields full of solar panels.

Not sure about that as I have personal experience of being surrounded by sheep on more than one occasion while working at large solar farms.

 

[JohnW2]

But you will probably assume that the cost of ownership will rise significantly as it ages and more bits wear out, so you'll take that into account when planning how long to keep it.

Indeed so, but that decision would be made on the basis of total estimated cost (or, equivalently, average cost per year) over the period of ownership I was considering.

Your 'halving of efficiency" figure seemingly came by comparing maintenance costs (probably very low) at the very start with costs in one year (year 7, 8, 9 or 10) when major maintenance had been undertaken. Using that approach, if major work was undertaken in, say, year 7 (resulting in a 'halving of efficiency' in that year), it is presumably very possible that efficiency would then 'double' again in year 8 (and possibly subsequent years) - which I don't think would be a particularly helpful measure or indicator of anything.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Your 'halving of efficiency" figure

IT IS NOT 'MY' FIGURE!