Talk:Solar power in the United Kingdom

Not unsuitable for solar power?
The builder
 * "Derry Newman, chief executive of Solarcentury, the company that supplied the solar photovoltaic modules, said that the UK's famously overcast weather did not make it an unsuitable place for solar power."

but
 * "... its 3,000-panel array generates up to 682 MWh a year, ... and thereby save 350 tonnes of CO2 a year.

Unfortunately
 * "The installation was developed at a cost of more than £2m ..."
 * http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/9108932.Sun_powers_up_UK_s_trail_blazing_park/

2 million pounds is 3.2 million US$; 682 MWh is an average power of 78 kW. So this project costs 41 US$/W(average), which is horrible.

Furthermore, at 31 p/kW-h, the carbon emission reduction is costing some large fraction of 310 £/MW-h * 682 MW-h / 350 t_CO2 = 600 £/t. 600 £ = 960 US$; the going rate is currently <25 US$/t.

So, if Solarcentury's project is anything to go by, solar power in Britain is bad for the economy and bad for the ecology. A two-fer! —WWoods (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Horrible indeed! This is original research. If you have a source which supports your conclusions add it in to the article. Johnfos (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how performing simple arithmetic on figures from the article and one other quoted source can be regarded as original research. --Anteaus (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"Solar panels work on daylight, not necessarily direct sunlight"
In the Feed-in Tariff section, the quote from Solarcentury regarding performance in overcast conditions is extremely unscientific. It gives no clue as to actual output in such conditions. The claim that, "Some solar cells work better in direct sunlight, others can use more diffuse light" also needs qualifying as to how much difference this makes. (otherwise the advantage of the better panels could be 0.00000001 Watt and still be a truthful claim) Basically this whole passage reads as advertising hype, and should perhaps be removed. Reliable engineering FIGURES for output in differing illumination levels or cloud cover would be a useful replacement.--Anteaus (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Solar heating and Solar Cooling
Two technologies not used in UK or not explored in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.214.68 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Capacity factor
Shouldn't the capacity factor be the generation divided by the possible generation (capacity x 24 x 365 (366 for a leap year))? Most of the figures are close but not exact - some higher, some lower. I wonder if provisional figures have been revised without the factor being changed or if there is an adjustment between year end capacity and average over the year. Should we replace the current figures with calculated ones, adding 2020? --Cavrdg (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

that was me, my apologies, i would have updated capacity factor but i didn't know what the formula was and I didn't see it in any of the references. Yes feel free to make this change and if you do maybe it would be an idea to have an footnote explaining where this data comes from? Jayflux (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

This has been resolved. I used (Generation x 1000) / (24 * 365 or 366 * capacity) Jayflux (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Reference 4, payback period.
"home rooftop solar panels were estimated to pay back their cost in ten to twenty years", The reasonable worst case payback period given in the quoted article is 16 years and ten months, not 20 years. The best case given in the article, 10y 4m, seams to be based more on averages and out of date tariff prices,and is therefore not the best case. 213.143.11.57 (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I would support removing the (recently added) sentence on payback. Too many variables. Maybe instead find a source to say payback improved in 2021 and 2022 with rising electricity prices. -- Wire723 (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)