Solar panels with no smart meter?

[JohnW2]

I think I may have made a mistake getting solar panels fitted, we were told before fitting around 6 years to break even, but today the figures I have recorded show more like 12 years.

As you know, I usually do (as I did to some extent at the start of this thread) strongly caution people in relation to decisions based on 'payback' / 'break even' time with these things, and suggest that, at the very least, they should very carefully undertake the sums and very carefully question how realistic the underlying assumptions are before making any decisions.

As I also always remind people, a, say, 12-year 'break even time' is another way of saying that, for the next 12 years one will be financially worse off than one would have been had one not had the panels/system installed - and, as I implied in post #3, at my age (and quite possible also yours), that would cause me to very seriously consider (doubt) the wisdom of going down that route.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

TOU tariffs have been both the informational channel and the economic driver for... .... ...for many years in this country, and are becoming more widespread all the time.

That may be historically true but, as I said, the more widespread and effective such automated systems become, the less need will there be for electricity prices to be different at different times of the day.

Varying prices (as in TOU tariffs) are only needed as a financial incentive for people to 'manually' adjust their pattern of energy usage such as to improve the supply/demand balance throughout the day/night. The more that 'adjustment of the pattern of energy usage' becomes automated, hence less reliant on human action, the less will be the need for a financial incentive for that human action.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Yes at 72 I am not sure if they will pay for them selves before I die or have to move.

However hard to quantify, as since they have been fitted, wife and daughter have been watching the use. I suppose like the smart meter, when one can see the cost one starts to turn off items not required.

I am still trying to work out where it is all going, the plug in energy meter is now doing the rounds, freezer one showing around 40 watt average, but using 10 times that, so where is it going?

 

[JohnW2]

Yes at 72 I am not sure if they will pay for them selves before I die or have to move.

That was obviously my point/implication, particularly given that (as I seemed to recall was the case) you are only one year younger than me.

Of course, as someone will undoubtedly point out, there are reasons other than personal financial benefit for having solar generation. However, I think human nature is such that when one reaches a certain age, one's financial position for (most or all of) the rest of one's life probably comes to be more of a consideration than 'saving the planet' (for which we can perhaps 'look to the youngsters'? ).

Kind Regards, John

 

[StephenStephen]

Varying prices (as in TOU tariffs) are only needed as a financial incentive for people to 'manually' adjust their pattern of energy usage such as to improve the supply/demand balance throughout the day/night. The more that 'adjustment of the pattern of energy usage' becomes automated, hence less reliant on human action, the less will be the need for a financial incentive for that human action.

This is a misunderstanding of how these systems currently (and increasingly) work.
TOU tariffs currently provide the financial incentive for people to move to and stay on automated systems, for example moving to Intelligent Octopus, or Crowdcharge with Agile import and export, to manage the timing of EV charging.

 

[JohnW2]

This is a misunderstanding of how these systems currently (and increasingly) work.
TOU tariffs currently provide the financial incentive for people to move to and stay on automated systems, for example moving to Intelligent Octopus, or Crowdcharge with Agile import and export, to manage the timing of EV charging.

I accept all that, but you are talking about the current situation, and that in the foreseeable future, whereas I am talking about the much longer term, probably beyond my lifetime.

I imagine that, in the fullness of time, the automated systems will largely take over 'management' from humans, at least in relation to major (and increasing) components of demand, particularly EV charging and there may well be a time when people have no option but to accept (without 'financial incentive') those automated systems.

However, who knows?! For the time being we will presumably have to continue with the situation in which the 'financial incentives' being used to change the pattern of energy usage in an (albeit increasing) minority are effectively being 'bankrolled'/subsidised by the majority.

Kind REgards, John

 

[StephenStephen]

However, who knows?! For the time being we will presumably have to continue with the situation in which the 'financial incentives' being used to change the pattern of energy usage in an (albeit increasing) minority are effectively being 'bankrolled'/subsidised by the majority.

Again you misunderstand the current situation - it's not a zero sum game.
For example; when supply exceeds demand, (assuming that costs are passed on to the majority) it can be more expensive to pay to switch off generation than to pay consumers to use more electricity. The extra cost or 'subsidy' is reduced by the effect of TOU tariffs, not increased.

 

[ericmark]

Loss of rotating mass has been a problem for some time now, with a steam turbine if there is a sudden load it takes time to slow down and so it is absorbed, but with inverter supplies they can't cope in the same way to a sudden load, I remember on the Falklands on a farm we would run the shears sharping disc all the time as the rotating mass stopped the generator loosing the field excitation when the shears were used, so could use a 3.5 kVA generator instead of the 12 kVA.

Electric mountain does have an impressive low start up time, but we are using less and less direct rotating generation, the micro generation is not required to adjust to the national demand, which means the larger generators have to adjust far more.

The paying for power based on peak power used has been in for a long time, my father was in charge of the steel works power station and I know they would delay some processes to keep the demand down at peak times and actually export to the national grid back in the 50's, so this is nothing new, what is new is for smaller uses to also have a variable charge due to demand at that time of day.

But smaller users don't have a guy watching the demand and adjusting when processes start to match the demand. We do to a small extent now with solar panels adjust our use, where I would set off dish washer off before going to bed, now I will set it off around mid day when there is enough power in the battery to supply that load, and I will also load the washing machine and tumble dryer ready, and again set them off when we have some charge in the batteries.

However we rely on some automation of the system, I don't want to have to also select when to turn on the immersion heater, or watch the power usage all day, I have noted the high base load, 57 watt on one freezer, 65 watt on another not yet measured the third one, but that does not explain why I never see the load under 250 watt.

An average of 90 watt maybe 100 watt on freezers, there is a delay with the solar software it is showing 3548 watt at the moment which is due to my making of 2 cups and a flask of coffee, this has now dropped to 491 watt, I will guess some down to this lap top, and some down to wife's TV running, but I do not intend to stop watching evening TV and only watch day time TV to save money.

5% of 3.5 kWh will run freezers for 2 hours, but that means the central heating will also stop, so not sure if good to use it. OK if sun is out, then the sun will charge the batteries up so then we can over night with the battery, all other loads will stop with a power cut, so as long as we have sun, we should be OK. But yesterday we would not have recharged the battery even with no load, we would have needed to turn off freezers to keep house warm.

Not a clue what the system does once battery is empty.

But some where it seems I have some thing using well over the 1 watt permitted for standby.

 

[JohnW2]

Again you misunderstand the current situation - it's not a zero sum game. For example; when supply exceeds demand, (assuming that costs are passed on to the majority) it can be more expensive to pay to switch off generation than to pay consumers to use more electricity. The extra cost or 'subsidy' is reduced by the effect of TOU tariffs, not increased.

I don't think I misunderstanding any of that but, as I said, it's not really the 'current situation' that I've been talking about.

I'm sure that, in the current situation, what you describe will sometimes arise. As things are ('in the current situation') the primary means of inducing people to shift demand to a period when supply otherwise would exceed demand is to provide 'financial incentives' (mediated via TOU tariffs) - and, as you say, if that shift of demand can (in the sort of circumstances you describe) result in a reduction in generation cost at that point in time.

However, that does not alter the fact that those who have (and 'take advantage of') the TOU tariffs are then paying less for their electricity at that point in time than they would be paying if everyone was paying the same for electricity at that point in time, whereas those not using such tariffs would be paying more than they would be paying if everyone was paying the same. Whether or not one calls that 'subsidising' is, I suppose, a material of semantics - but it certainly represents an 'inequality'. However, I accept that such is probably currently fairly inevitable, since the human responses to 'financial incentives' are the major means by which we are trying to shift demand to periods when supply would otherwise be under-utilised.

However, as I keep saying, as automated systems (not reliant on humans responding to 'incentives) become more prevalent, situations such as you describe should become increasingly uncommon, since the systems will respond to a period when supply would otherwise exceed demand by 'switching on more demand' - and, since humans are not involved in that, there would then be diminishing (ultimately theoretically 'no') need for financial incentives.

That's how i see it, anyway, whether it is right or wrong

Kind Regards, John

 

[StephenStephen]

whereas those not using such tariffs would be paying more than they would be paying if everyone was paying the same

Nope, that's the same mathematical misunderstanding - it's not a zero sum game.

 

[StephenStephen]

However, as I keep saying, as automated systems (not reliant on humans responding to 'incentives) become more prevalent, situations such as you describe should become increasingly uncommon, since the systems will respond to a period when supply would otherwise exceed demand by 'switching on more demand' - and, since humans are not involved in that, there would then be diminishing (ultimately theoretically 'no') need for financial incentives.

That's how i see it, anyway, whether it is right or wrong

You may keep saying it, but it continues to be mistaken and misleading.
The widespread uptake, retention and development of automation in electricity time of use is not driven by automation itself, it is led by human beings deciding to use, stick with and change between TOU tariffs.

 

[JohnW2]

Nope, that's the same mathematical misunderstanding - it's not a zero sum game.

I don't know what you mean by 'zero sum game', so I really need more explanation of the nature of my 'mathematical misunderstanding.

However, as I said, whatever vocabulary one chooses to use, if two consumers are paying different prices for their electricity at the same time of day, then there is clearly an 'inequality' - but, as I acknowledged, that is probably unavoidable so long as we are reliant on some people being induced by financial incentives to shift their demand to times of day when, otherwise, available supply would exceed demand.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

You may keep saying it, but it continues to be mistaken and misleading. .. The widespread uptake, retention and development of automation in electricity time of use is not driven by automation itself, it is led by human beings deciding to use, stick with and change between TOU tariffs.

You don't seem to be thinking/talking as far ahead as I am (as I've said, probably beyond my lifetime, but not necessarily beyond the ;lifetimes of some reading this).

If/when we reach a situation in which automated systems approach the stage at which demand is fairly closely matched to available supply at all times of day/night, without any human intervention, the whole concept of TOU tariffs (and their use) would become essentially redundant. As you keep observing, we are currently in a situation which is highly dependent on human choices and behaviour, hence the need for TOU tariffs and incentives to have and use them, but that will probably not continue to be the case indefinitely.

Kind Regards, John

 

[StephenStephen]

I don't know what you mean by 'zero sum game', so I really need more explanation of the nature of my 'mathematical misunderstanding.

However, as I said, whatever vocabulary one chooses to use, if two consumers are paying different prices for their electricity at the same time of day, then there is clearly an 'inequality' - but, as I acknowledged, that is probably unavoidable so long as we are reliant on some people being induced by financial incentives to shift their demand to times of day when, otherwise, available supply would exceed demand.

Kind Regards, John

Hi John, here's a starting place: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game

Here's an analogy:

-I sell tomatoes Monday to Friday

-On Friday I can either sell them cheap to people with tomato soup makers (TOU), or I have to pay to have them disposed of (curtailment)

-Being able to sell them cheap on Friday, instead of paying to have them disposed of, means I don't have to charge as much on Monday to Thursday to make the same money.

 

[StephenStephen]

If/when we reach a situation in which automated systems approach the stage at which demand is fairly closely matched to available supply at all times of day/night, without any human intervention, the whole concept of TOU tariffs (and their use) would become essentially redundant. As you keep observing, we are currently in a situation which is highly dependent on human choices and behaviour, hence the need for TOU tariffs and incentives to have and use them, but that will probably not continue to be the case indefinitely

I would love to live in a world where supply and demand were balanced by availability and need, I really would.

However, the suggestion that TOU tariffs become increasingly redundant as automation matches supply and demand more closely, carries the same weight as the suggestion that price differences and fluctuations become increasingly redundant in the cost of tomatoes, or milk or bananas or X-boxes or televisions etc.

I really don't like the inherent inequality and inhumanity in this system of exchange, but it doesn't apply to electricity any more than it applies to any other set of goods or services.