Re: Re: OT: Electricity generation

["Jon Wilkins" <jonpdwilkins@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'd be interested in the results of your calculations, dermot.  I
recently
did some very approximate maths and got to about 30 years payback
*assuming*a full govt grant of 50%.  If I remember, I was looking at
some of the
vendors websites where they quoted an estimate cost per kWh generated.

Your electiricy consumption doesn't really vary the payback period (unless
you use less than it can produce).  Because the amount you generate will
just offset your annual electric bill, then the question is how many years
do you have to repeat it to pay back the investment.

Still, the way things are, I think *anything* that gives householders a
choice of supply is a good thing -- if we weren't all too dependant on gas
in the winter the likes of N-Power would never get away with things like
their 'sculpting' scam.



2009/1/18 Paul Bendall <paul@xxxxxxx>

>   I assume that is 0.3KwH per hour? If so that is pretty low and
> equates to 2,700KwH per annum.
>
> Found the following information from Srathclyde Univeristy from
> 2001:
> 1. Working Couple - 4,117 kWh electricity
> 2. Single Person - 3,084 kWh electricity
> 3. Family with two children - 5,480 kWh electricity
> (Parents working, children at school)
>
> The lower you electricity usage the better the chance a PV array
> could produce most of your needs. Haven't done the rest of the
> calculations to see how big the array would need to be, how much
> that would cost and therefore what the payback period would be.
>
> I have read a lot of people bemonaing the the grant system as a
> chaotic mess and so a lot of people give up on it.
>
> Paul
> --- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx <ukha_d%40yahoogroups.com>,
"dermot_bradley"
> <bradley@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > --- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx <ukha_d%40yahoogroups.com>,
"Paul Bendall"
> <paul@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That leaves us with photovoltaic cells or PVC's which is
what
> most
> > > people think of as solar panels. If you are only after a few
> hundred
> > > watts then these are probably the best option. But then you
> have to
> > > consider that they normal generate power when you don't want
> light so
> > > you have to store the energy they produce for use when you
do
> want
> > > it. That means batteries and usually 24v deep-cycle
batteries
> (car
> > > batteries are not great at going from full charge to low
> charge back
> > > to full-charge).
> >
> > Now that I've got an idea of my baseline power usage for the
> house
> > (approx 0.3KwH but I'm still improving it) I've been meaning to
> sit
> > down and work out what the paypack period for "entry
level" PV
> > solution would be, say for a 1KwH setup with no battery storage.
> >
> > I've seen mention that a 1KwH (or is it 1KwP?) panel
> realistically
> > generates 0.75KmH.
> >
> > Basically price up such a system, figure how much in grants I
> would
> > get to offset the purchase price, see what the "buy"
price is
> from the
> > local electricity company for excess power and calculate likely
> power
> > excess generated due summer and winter months, factor in the
> > electricity power bill reduction gained by the panels driving my
> > baseline load during daylight, and then see if the payback
> period is
> > some realistic timeframe - 10 years? 8? 5? I wonder...
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------------------