Video

The PW3 was confirmed as LFP a few weeks ago by a Tesla engineer - so you can call off the dogs… 👍🏻

@@GaryDoesSolar Dogs?? Sorry, didnt assume youd be that sensitive to the internet. It's just weird that you say something is a deal-breaker, then say you're assuming that deal-breaker isnt the case. (It's also weird only 3rd parties, mostly installers, are saying the PW3 is LFP, but yet nothing from Tesla -and the source is a unknown Tesla employee giving an informal presentation). It's a question of credibility, ie, what other biases are in play with your reviews & recommendations 🤔? But while Ive got your attention, Im curious about Tesla's MPPTs, namely their clip value. Panels have gotten far more efficient, yet when I checked last year, both Enphase & SolarEdge havent kept up. I dont mean amps, rather how many watts (a more familiar value for the masses) can a Tesla MPPT take before clipping? Also, there's a problem with having so many critical systems tied into 1 vendor. Like I dont mind the closed-ecosystem, esp given Tesla's software, but it's not like Tesla's are known for their build quality.TIA. [Oh, and 1 more question: Does Tesla enable panel level monitoring?]

What was the different between net metering and net billing at the time?

Yup. Just search for “tax” on this page: rippleenergy.com/faq/all-questions#

@@GaryDoesSolar After careful reading that makes things clearer, but the way it is explained is misleading. Ripple say "The majority of Ripple members will not pay any tax on any of their savings." - but this is only true if the member's personal savings allowance hasn't already been exceeded by other savings income, which since interest rates have gone up is fairly easy to do. Rather than a long winded explanation that says most Ripple members "trading benefit" will be less than their personal savings allowance, Ripple should be clear and say that the trading benefit will be treated as savings income and will be added to any other savings income for tax purposes. I would guess that most people who are investing in Ripple projects will have interest bearing savings. This makes Ripple less attractive as a hedge against future high energy prices, because if if you have already exceeded your personal savings allowance and the trading benefit increases, the increase will all be taxed at your marginal (highest) tax rate. I still support Ripple as a good cause and will invest, but with the very long payback period and current tax treatment of the trading benefit, I can see no financial case for investing and this will have to affect the amount that I invest.

Hi Paul, I’m not sure I’m understanding the issue here. It looks like you’re exporting more than you’re importing, so that means you should see a credit on your next bill. Worth writing an email to hello@octopus.energy and ask them to explain the bill you’re receiving 👍🏻

@@GaryDoesSolar thanks i have changed a setting on the inverter to charge battery early hour's it's the fact i am showing high usage ? Used but exporting More out on paper this month

Could it be that you’re importing quite a lot during the peak time? That is quite an expensive rate then….

@@GaryDoesSolar thanks Gary that seems to be the case I changed the battery charging to get charged early hour's also the inverter Clock. Was. One hour. Out there are only two of of us and we are out most of the day thanks for you thought's and analysis

Don't just make blanket statements - tell us why...?

Thank you, Mark - great to hear such feedback! :-)

Good point, but worth mentioning that with the high power output of the PW3, it will cope with whatever appliances are in use at the time, and because you get a notification in the Tesla app, you can then go round at switch off all the heavy appliances to preserve the battery. In my mind, this is far less disruptive (e.g. no clocks to reset...)

Yup, that's a great use case and I think more and more people will be doing just that!

Crikey! What model of battery do you have?

Is this for the ESE Group monitor supplied by Rowan Energy? Call me a cynic, but one might conclude from what you say here that there's a struggle to meet ongoing financial obligations to existing customers and these are changes applied to mitigate matters... Is that sustainable though...?

@@GaryDoesSolar yes it is. I produced 10,000kWh in the last 12 months so only getting paid for half is not interesting. I heard from another source that he tried to buy it yesterday but was told monitors were in short supply so could only be supplied if panels etc were purchased as well. The chap from Rowan mentioned they were expanding their block chain. I am not sure what this could mean for the integrity of our data. I am very suspicious of this until more info is available.

@@brianjenkins7989Thanks Brian. Would you be happy to keep in touch with me via email on this topic? It would be great if so, and I’d have current information that will help others make good decisions. My email is me@garydoessolar.com if that works for you 🙏

Hi Lynda, if I had an EV, I'd be on one of the EV tariffs instead, as the overnight/early morning off-peak import rate beats every other tariff I've seen... But whilst I don't have an EV, I'm very happy with Intelligent Octopus Flux for the time-being. There's a lot of export going on (especially at peak times) so I'm expecting to see some decent revenue at the end of each month as we head towards the summer. And I honestly don't mind when Octopus charges my battery - I kinda just trust the system :-)

Hi Richard, a bit too early to say as I've only been on the tariff for just over 3 weeks... That said, there's an awful lot of exporting going on, especially during peak times - and so I'm hoping to see that reflected well in the monthly bills :-)

You're most welcome, Mike - thanks for the great feedback! I'll keep the videos coming :-)

Hi John, I don't know why they've chosen 20% either - perhaps it's to leave sufficient energy in the battery in case there is a power cut? Or perhaps it's to preserve the life of the battery? Not sure...

Unfortunately not. Your inverter limit will dictate the maximum export (ie 6kW) and solar power will get priority over battery discharge. So if you’re generating say 4kW with solar, the battery will add another 2kW to make 6kW.

This doesn’t make sense. Panels don’t generate AC.

@@GaryDoesSolar No they clearly don't , unless they have a micro-inverter attached to feed AC into an AC coupled inverter..... Ne'er mind Gary as I have found the answer elsewhere. Sorry to have confused you.

No worries. Glad you found the answer 👍🏻

Thanks, and I tend to agree 👍🏻

Hi Mike, that’s high praise - thank you! 🙏 I’ll keep the videos coming…

Thanks Harold - that’s such great feedback to receive! You might also like to watch this interview I did a few weeks ago with Enphase: czcams.com/video/kGCKarB7fnI/video.htmlsi=dDbrA-U_nkKpI-hG

Cheers Julian - thanks 🙏

Hi there. My understanding is that you've have to move away from your pay-as-you-go tariff directly onto Agile. Worth you making a call to Octopus to ask them directly though...

True - one of the downsides of being next to the coast. A good, solid enclosure should help though...

I'm not experienced enough in that area to answer, but perhaps others can....

Many people set up a camera or smartphone on a tripod (or other fixed position) pointed at the roof, then take photos every 30 minutes to build up a picture of the shading throughout the day. But there are software tools like Easy PV that you might like to try - they use solar modelling to show actual shading... Take a look at this video (4m20s in): czcams.com/video/RTgM7j2yLIw/video.html

Today's home batteries last at least 10 years and can run for maybe 15-20 years depending on how you use them...

Great points!

Yeah, I really don't like the concept of them...

This is great insight, Mike. Thanks for sharing. We should all simply concentrate on actual CO2 reduction - that’s all 👍🏻

@@GaryDoesSolar Thanks Gary. It's not rocket science! I have been trying to persuade Michael Gove to amend Building Regulations to provide that all new industrial or residential buildings should have the maximum number of solar panels, or tiles, that their roofs can accommodate in a favourable aspect and that any change of use application for commercial or industrial buildings should require the same. By decentralising solar generation the load on the grid of new generation and distribution is distributed such that much or most of it can be accommodated by the existing infrastructure or would reduce the load otherwise provided by drawing from the local grid. This not only obviates the need for immediate, extensive and expensive, renovation of the grid but also allows for a large increase in solar generation without the long delays experienced at present for new large installations (wind or solar). It is important to lobby for a large number of smaller installations on existing and newly constructed rooftops as an alternative to large solar farms on land which could better be used for amenity, leisure or food production. I was interested to drive past a farm in France recently which had a very large barn whose roof was entirely covered on both slopes with solar panels. This is increasingly common in South West France and, no doubt, these farms are probably self sufficient in electricity. In UK, where export to the grid is easier than in France they could also provide a surplus to the grid on many days. Our newish local supermarket (Le Clerc) also has the whole of the shading over the car park covered with panels which provide all its needs.

It's great to see competition like this in the home battery market - greater choice ultimately helps bring prices down :-)

Thanks for sharing this insight, Stephen - yeah, I'm hearing that the price of that particular product has increased over the years, potentially to over £1,500 if you don't get an installation through ESE...

@@GaryDoesSolar I would always check the financials on the government companies website of any company I was looking to buy Solar, any major purchase or anything I hadn’t seen before like this carbon offset. You can see how long they have been trading, financials (audited or not) and who the directors are and then Google them. www.gov.uk/get-information-about-a-company

And I've yet to encounter *any* compelling case studies that definitively demonstrate the viability of crypto coins in real-world applications...

Agreed

Thanks, Michael - and the problem is, that many, many people see to be investing into these devices - and it worries me...

Thanks Rod - unfortunately, I don't know too much about the FiT scheme, but this link might be of use to you - a forum on Facebook where there is a lot of discussion around the scheme: facebook.com/groups/2197329430289466/permalink/6080359505319753/

Great points! Thanks for sharing...

You're most welcome! :-)

I think some of your concerns exist regardless of this; most retailers are offering smart meter upgrades which they could easily make the same observations without needing any additional device such as a ‘carbon offset monitor’

The device I saw was UK-based, but like any new, growing market there is the attraction for 'snake oil' products and services to appear - so I wanted to make the video in case people come across products like this anywhere in the world, so they can make an informed purchasing decision...

Those are my thoughts too, Rob!

@@GaryDoesSolar I noticed this from the top review of one of the installers: “My first two devices went in February 2021. I’ve added a third in December 2022. Now my brother has also signed up”. I assume that the reviewer is receiving 3x10p per kWh for the same production on top of export income!

Thanks for the great feedback - really great to hear! :-)

Agreed

That’s a brilliant idea!

I believe the original version of some products were just CT clamps, but that's very easily 'gamed' as you say. In my mind, if you were ever going to do this properly, the inverter equipment manufacturers could build in certified capability... but given that no inverter manufacturer that I know of has done this, I have to ask myself why not...? ;-)

Yeah, I really don't like the idea of offsets - in my view, they just allow companies to essentially not change and feel good about it...

Yes, green washing by con merchants.

Dreadful idea

Sources?

@@GaryDoesSolar simply google 'how much co2 is there in the atmosphere'

@@GaryDoesSolar not sure why my reply isn`t showing, simply google 'how much co2 is there in the atmosphere'

Hi Anthony, I always value your thoughts so thanks for taking the time to share them. While I personally don't like the concept of carbon credits, I'd be happy if they were enforced as a temporary solution - meaning that a business could only benefit from continuing to use carbon credits if they demonstrated actual carbon reduction over time (essentially, mechanisms to avoid abuse). What do you think?

@@GaryDoesSolar There certainly is abuse being recorded in the carbon trading system. For example you can have the landowner of a forest and they will claim carbon credits simply for having that forest and not chopping it down. The carbon credits are issued supposing that the forest would otherwise be chopped down even though it was never planned to be chopped down. This is one of the most blatant examples of abuse when it comes to the carbon credit system. I certainly don’t have definitive answers for this. That certainly needs to be an emissions quota system on a global level. Indeed I am aware of various carbon trading schemes around the world but I’m not familiar with their mechanisms. The problem with these kind of systems is that it’s terribly easy to create emissions without recording it (e.g. clearing land by burning forests) and it’s also terribly easy to claim that you’ve sequestered carbon without adequate methods of demonstrating how much, or indeed if that sequestration is over and above what would have happened by natural processes. At a national level HMRC has records of coal, oil, gas consumption in our country as well as import/export quantities. I’m guessing carbon emitting industrial process leading to steel and cement sales are also quantified by HMRC. So carbon emissions can be inferred from those records, and indeed they are recorded right down to a individual company / retail sale. The question is whether those records account for all the carbon emissions activity. I suspect that it’s most of the activity, but agriculture is also big, but I’m not an agricultural expert. There’s a lot of carbon locked up in soil, and that can be sequestered or released in ways that are hard to record. So then that brings up the question of defining and recording carbon credits. To my mind a carbon credit should only be given when you remove CO2 from the atmosphere. In a simple comparison, planting a tree will do that, but running your life with solar power doesn’t. Solar is simply the avoidance of CO2 emissions rather than the removal of CO2. But carbon credits do appear to actually be given for avoiding carbon emissions. And this is where the abuse happens. To my mind it’s impossible to record avoided carbon emissions. You can avoid carbon emissions for example simply by turning off a light, but it’s frankly absurd to be given a credit for that. So I think in conclusion, carbon emissions quotas, credits and trading needs some explanation (in layman’s terms), with a question of how it can be reformed. Do I fancy giving that a go? That’s going to be a lot of homework!

@@anthonydyer3939 Thanks for laying out your detailed thoughts on this 👍 In my mind, it all feels intangible... so if you're able to tie it down to something practical and workable, I'd be impressed!

?

0.03% in 1920. Very good way to highlight that it's gone up 35% in 100 years and we should be doing more to bring it back down. Glad you are as concerned as everyone else and we should be doing more, great to have you on side 👍

@@GaryDoesSolar juvenile attempt to make some point about how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.

@@steve_787How did the optimal level for global well being get calculated? Can you show me a link!

@@steve_787 I'm a sceptic. I'm not sure what the actual value should be. Why is the 1923 value the correct one. What's wrong with .05% ?? If we go to 0.01% would that be better 🤣 We need CO2 or plants will die off

Thanks for sharing this insight, Michael. And I wish you the best for this summer too. I’m looking forward to a LOT of solar generation hopefully 😀👍🏻

So my view is that we should dump the whole notion of carbon credits, and just recognise where we're using carbon, and try to reduce that usage over time...