Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Marks DTM Calib]

I really would like to know the answer to this. 

Its very dependent on the install but , its well recognised that its takes 4-8 years to produce the same level of energy that was requried to make it.

The issue is that the efficency of the panel falls off with age with most panels only being truely good for about 10 years (they will operate for much longer but at nothing near the efficiency they were originaly built to).

Hence you might get a few years of energy gain and thats only thanks to the latest production developments, its not many years ago that they would enver produce the same energy required to make one.

[I_want_an_Omega]

Fair enough re the NIC bit - but surely the guys that are MSC had it get it somewhere. I'm not surprised that it tight as dealing with high voltage DC is something that needs to be done properly

[zirk]

Fair enough re the NIC bit - but surely the guys that are MSC had it get it somewhere. I'm not surprised that it tight as dealing with high voltage DC is something that needs to be done properly

My understanding or guess work are, two options, give up your day job and go and become an apprentice for an existing MCS Company to get the Certs, guessing their going to happy when you leave shortly afterwards. Or get two guinea pigs to pay for your first 2 Installs (do a trade deal with them Im guessing) and pay an MCS Guy to help you install them, still not convinced how this one works.

Another factor that pops up now and then, is MCS approval doesn't allow you to sign off any structural changes made, something depending upon local Councils or Insurance Co's may need. So  more money for the Structural Engineer and their not cheap. 

 

[Marks DTM Calib]

Fair enough re the NIC bit - but surely the guys that are MSC had it get it somewhere. I'm not surprised that it tight as dealing with high voltage DC is something that needs to be done properly

I would imagine that the real challenge is ensuring that there is grid quality mains which is suitably interfaced and protected would be a bigger challenge.

DC is much easier to do the calcs etc on

[Marks DTM Calib]

Fair enough re the NIC bit - but surely the guys that are MSC had it get it somewhere. I'm not surprised that it tight as dealing with high voltage DC is something that needs to be done properly

My understanding or guess work are, two options, give up your day job and go and become an apprentice for an existing MCS Company to get the Certs, guessing their going to happy when you leave shortly afterwards. Or get two guinea pigs to pay for your first 2 Installs (do a trade deal with them Im guessing) and pay an MCS Guy to help you install them, still not convinced how this one works.

Another factor that pops up now and then, is MCS approval doesn't allow you to sign off any structural changes made, something depending upon local Councils or Insurance Co's may need. So  more money for the Structural Engineer and their not cheap. 

 

I am very pleased to hear that as the structual clacs are not trivial and potentialy more dangerous than a poor electrical install.

To me, the panels should require building regs to ensure roof loading etc is considered

[tunnie]

What about if one fails? Surely any cost of replacement/fix would offset any gains?

What about yobs throwing stones at them, or natural issues like branches falling on them? Would that be covered by house insurance? Surely any claim there is going to hit you on return as well 

[zirk]

Talking of Solar Panels, this seems like the bargain of the century.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Broken-Solar-Cells-6x6-Multi-Wafers-Solar-Cell-Untabbed-/320769951527?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aaf610727#ht_720wt_932

Is it me or Im I missing something here. 

[Shackeng]

I really would like to know the answer to this. 

Its very dependent on the install but , its well recognised that its takes 4-8 years to produce the same level of energy that was requried to make it.

The issue is that the efficency of the panel falls off with age with most panels only being truely good for about 10 years (they will operate for much longer but at nothing near the efficiency they were originaly built to).

Hence you might get a few years of energy gain and thats only thanks to the latest production developments, its not many years ago that they would enver produce the same energy required to make one.

Having had a chat to my installer today, he pointed me to this link,  http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/what-energy-and-carbon-payback-time-pv-panels-uk which suggests that your information is somewhat out of date. The study from 2008 claims a payback of only 2.5 years, and as the efficiency and production methods will have improved since then, it will be less than that now.

[Tony H]

'kin 'ell I've opened a right can of worms with this one  thanks for all the replys all keep them coming 

[Marks DTM Calib]

I really would like to know the answer to this. 

Its very dependent on the install but , its well recognised that its takes 4-8 years to produce the same level of energy that was requried to make it.

The issue is that the efficency of the panel falls off with age with most panels only being truely good for about 10 years (they will operate for much longer but at nothing near the efficiency they were originaly built to).

Hence you might get a few years of energy gain and thats only thanks to the latest production developments, its not many years ago that they would enver produce the same energy required to make one.

Having had a chat to my installer today, he pointed me to this link,  http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/what-energy-and-carbon-payback-time-pv-panels-uk which suggests that your information is somewhat out of date. The study from 2008 claims a payback of only 2.5 years, and as the efficiency and production methods will have improved since then, it will be less than that now.

I can assure you that it is the latest, I am currently working with a solar panel manufacturer where we are developing a flexible solar panel 

[Shackeng]

I really would like to know the answer to this. 

Its very dependent on the install but , its well recognised that its takes 4-8 years to produce the same level of energy that was requried to make it.

The issue is that the efficency of the panel falls off with age with most panels only being truely good for about 10 years (they will operate for much longer but at nothing near the efficiency they were originaly built to).

Hence you might get a few years of energy gain and thats only thanks to the latest production developments, its not many years ago that they would enver produce the same energy required to make one.

Having had a chat to my installer today, he pointed me to this link,  http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/what-energy-and-carbon-payback-time-pv-panels-uk which suggests that your information is somewhat out of date. The study from 2008 claims a payback of only 2.5 years, and as the efficiency and production methods will have improved since then, it will be less than that now.

I can assure you that it is the latest, I am currently working with a solar panel manufacturer where we are developing a flexible solar panel 

Can you post the reference to the 4-8 years payback time  please Mark, as my installer is very interested in the discrepancy.

[Marks DTM Calib]

As you will be aware, the real figures are closely guarded by the manufacturers and there is plenty of 'spin' out there with many figures quoted based on cooled arrays close to the equator (in fact, these are the figures your fitter will have seen and the ones used as promotional material in the sales lit) which are 'ideal'.

Now, this is due to there being no standard test setup although hopefuly the new draft (yes draft i.e. not even fully finalised!) standard which DERlab have proposed may well help to clarify things (which only appeared in July of this year!) in the US and Europe.

We are currently working with Sanyo and the figures I have quoted is what you would expect with the latest tech in the Uk (we have just completed a study which is not in the public domain to base line results using a number of different panels due to the above lack of standardisation in order to allow us to the get an idea of the effectiveness and efficency of our flexi panel).

So as said, the figures you see today are based on spin and no baseline test standard.....hence are not accurate and cant be trusted.

[Shackeng]

Thanks Mark, very interesting, but I have difficulty reconciling the the figures you quote of 4 - 8 years with the quoted 2008 figure of 2.5 years, which are an improvement on earlier figures from the same source. Also it seems very odd that with improvements in manufacture and panel output, that, according to your figures, the payback time is getting worse. Unless the figures in the link I quoted are completely bogus, in which case if you can give me a positive reference to qualify that, I will take it up with them, as clearly many people will use such information in deciding to fit PV. 
I am not sure whether there are any figures for payback from Govmnt sources, but I feel it is worth pointing out that the annual generated figure estimated for my 3.9Kw array, as calculated in accordance with official guidance, is 3218KW.  This figure was exceeded after only ten months, so clearly they are very conservative estimates, and I would have expected payback times to have been calculated equally conservatively.

[I_want_an_Omega]

Thanks Mark, very interesting, but I have difficulty reconciling the the figures you quote of 4 - 8 years with the quoted 2008 figure of 2.5 years, which are an improvement on earlier figures from the same source. Also it seems very odd that with improvements in manufacture and panel output, that, according to your figures, the payback time is getting worse. Unless the figures in the link I quoted are completely bogus, in which case if you can give me a positive reference to qualify that, I will take it up with them, as clearly many people will use such information in deciding to fit PV. 
I am not sure whether there are any figures for payback from Govmnt sources, but I feel it is worth pointing out that the annual generated figure estimated for my 3.9Kw array, as calculated in accordance with official guidance, is 3218KW.  This figure was exceeded after only ten months, so clearly they are very conservative estimates, and I would have expected payback times to have been calculated equally conservatively.

I can totally see mark's logic here - but Shackeng's real world experience seems to be in the opposite direction. The config that I'm looking at is a nominal 4.0Kw system with a design output of 3643. I haven't signed yet - but will be very soon.

There is a window here which I want to exploit - and for once want to get "something back" from the "system".

[Marks DTM Calib]

Be aware that I am not talking cash pay back figures (as they are not real due to the stupid inflated feed in charge) I am talking the time to produce the same quantity of energy required to make them!.

At no point have I talked financials as that is not a level playing field!

I am very keen to see the subsidised feed in rates got rid of and the money used to make renewables work properly as today, they are practicaly useless.