Maker Pro
Maker Pro

The first 2,000 kwh

V

vaughn

Jan 1, 1970
0
Falcon said:
It's the Return On Investment (ROI) that's important from Tom's point of
view. In this case not only the current return on the cost of investment is
important; assumptions he has made about the future price of electricity
and maintenance costs are critical. If the assumptions are realistic and
the ROI still compares favourably with other forms of investment, Tom has
made a wise move, regardless of any other considerations.

There's actually far more to this than a simple ROI calculation. Other
important factors are Cost of Capital and Opportunity Cost, plus an educated
guess regarding what's going to happen to them over the next 20 years.

Also, many folks fail to consider the lifetime of the PV installation vs. the
lifetime of the roof surface it's installed over. If you need to replace the
roofing before the PV is junk, then you must either pay for a second
installation or junk the PV early. Either way, you are out money.

(Don't put me in anti-PV group, I own a modest system myself. I just don't
expect it to ever pay for itself.)

Vaughn
 
F

Falcon

Jan 1, 1970
0
There's actually far more to this than a simple ROI calculation. Other
important factors are Cost of Capital and Opportunity Cost, plus an educated
guess regarding what's going to happen to them over the next 20 years.

Also, many folks fail to consider the lifetime of the PV installation vs. the
lifetime of the roof surface it's installed over. If you need to replace the
roofing before the PV is junk, then you must either pay for a second
installation or junk the PV early. Either way, you are out money.

(Don't put me in anti-PV group, I own a modest system myself. I just don't
expect it to ever pay for itself.)

Agreed, that's something that I considered. My tiled roof is probably
around 40 years old. Whether it will last for another 20-25 years without
needing renovation is anyone's guess.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
vaughn said:
There's actually far more to this than a simple ROI calculation. Other
important factors are Cost of Capital and Opportunity Cost, plus an
educated guess regarding what's going to happen to them over the next 20
years.

Also, many folks fail to consider the lifetime of the PV installation vs.
the lifetime of the roof surface it's installed over. If you need to
replace the roofing before the PV is junk, then you must either pay for a
second installation or junk the PV early. Either way, you are out money.

Very good point.
 
M

m II

Jan 1, 1970
0
Home insurance companies are becoming concerned and could end up not
insuring homes with solar panels on the roof. They don't like it when the
firefighters stand back and watch your home burn.

http://www.nctimes.com/business/article_8a32fb03-9e3f-58ca-b860-9c7fe1e28c7e.html

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


"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
I installed galvy pipe supports on leveling wedges waterproofed with
the boots that seal drain vent stacks. Perforated strapping slid up
under the shingles catches downward sliding forces.

I made a shingling mistake that allowed water above an ice dam to leak
in too easily. It didn't happen until the day after my paid-off
mortgage arrived by mail and was sitting on the kitchen table, under
the leak.

jsw
 
M

m II

Jan 1, 1970
0
Let us know when the investment interest on the money is paid off.

In Ontario Canada they raised the payback to $0.802 per kWh as the owners
have realised it costs about $0.40 / kWh to produce.

Now people are installing for investment profit.
 
B

Bob F

Jan 1, 1970
0
vaughn said:
Also, many folks fail to consider the lifetime of the PV installation
vs. the lifetime of the roof surface it's installed over. If you
need to replace the roofing before the PV is junk, then you must
either pay for a second installation or junk the PV early. Either
way, you are out money.

It seems to me that the roof under the panels would last way longer than the
rest of the roof, since it is protected from sun and heat by the panels.
 
M

m II

Jan 1, 1970
0
If he is co-generating then he generates nothing when the grid is down.

---------------------
"Peter Muehlbauer" wrote in message
And I'm not quite sure that he included costs for installation and future
maintenance.
An amortization before about 20 years? No.
And what will be in 20 years? Who knows?

For the costs of his installation, I'm able to obtain electricity for the
next
20 years from our electric company also.
And this is much safer and without blackouts.
 
T

Tom P

Jan 1, 1970
0
Thanks Tom. though there's nothing there I hadn't considered, I do
like your point about "essentially maintenence free". I hope that
would be the case, but I will research that one further before taking
the plunge! What spinner has posted about the UK is exactly what I
understand as well. Vaughn's point about roof lifetime is important.
Is it possible to dismantle the apparatus, if that became necessary at
some time and rebuild it on a new roof?

No reason why not, the panels simply rest on an aluminium frame and are
anchored by bolts and brackets. I would still suggest getting a
specialist to do it for safety reasons. Of course it doesn't make sense
to install the panels without first overhauling or at least checking the
state of the roof.
 
T

Tom P

Jan 1, 1970
0
[..]
We don't have enough information, Peter.

It's the Return On Investment (ROI) that's important from Tom's point of
view. In this case not only the current return on the cost of investment is
important; assumptions he has made about the future price of electricity
and maintenance costs are critical. If the assumptions are realistic and
the ROI still compares favourably with other forms of investment, Tom has
made a wise move, regardless of any other considerations.

That said, the return he makes on his investment doesn't appear out of thin
air. It MAY be economically sound for Tom, but what about everyone else?
What concerns me is the effect the subsidies he receives, has on
electricity prices for the vast majority of people who cannot afford to
invest in PV or other forms of renewables. His generous feed-in tariff is
paid for by the rest of us in the form of higher electricity prices.

If his (and other domestic and corporate investors) ROI is as high as, say
10%, does that justify and increase of 10% in electricity prices for the
rest of us? How do you feel about it Tom?

A couple of things to say about this. The first is that electricity
prices reflect the cost of generation, which to a large extent reflects
the cost of fossil fuels. Household electricity tariffs in Germany have
increased by a factor of around 4 since 1970, and roughly doubled since
2000. There is no reason to expect the cost of fossil fuels to fall in
the future and every reason to expect them to rise, meaning that we can
expect electricity prices to rise regardless of renewables.

Another factor in the consumer price of electricity is tax. Electricity
in France is not significantly cheaper because of nuclear energy, but
rather that the French government applies a much lower tax rate than
nearly every other country in Europe, Germany and Denmark the highest.

Since the percentage of PV grid feed-in has only recently become
anywhere near significant, it is clear that none of these price rises
can be the result of subsidized grid feed-in, and hence the claim that a
10% rise in electricity prices is the result of grid feed-in subsidy is
unjustified and simply used as a scapegoat.

As far as the feed-in tariffs are concerned, the difference between the
average household tariff and the grid feed-in tariff is around 5 cents.
The feed-in tariff is declining every year, so that in a few years
together with the rising electricity prices we can expect parity. At
that point no-one can claim that the PV installations are being subsidized.

I don't know where you got your figures from, but in the UK the situation
is different.

1) "...the difference between the average household tariff and the grid
feed-in tariff is around 5 cents".

I'd like to see a reference for that. In the UK, the fee-in tariff is "up
to 41.3p/kWh, depending on the type and size of the system used to generate
renewable energy", plus "an additional 3p/kWh when you export any surplus
back to the grid".

The UK market is awash with different tariffs, but average price consumers
pay for electricity is around 13p/kWh. This is expected to rise to around
15-16p/kWh (20% or so) in the next few months as wholesale prices feed into
the retail market.

In the UK the difference between the price paid to someone like you with PV
panels and the average household tariff is, therefore, around 28p/kWh (31-
32 Euro-cents/kWh.
That is a spectacular difference. Here the tariff has gone down from 33c
to 28c since 1st Jan. Household rates for power are around 22-24 cents
depending on the contract. There are also cheaper deals for flat rates
and upfront contracts.
 
T

Tom P

Jan 1, 1970
0
Agreed, that's something that I considered. My tiled roof is probably
around 40 years old. Whether it will last for another 20-25 years without
needing renovation is anyone's guess.

I wouldn't put a PV on it if it's more than 20 years old.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bob F said:
It seems to me that the roof under the panels would last way longer than
the rest of the roof, since it is protected from sun and heat by the
panels.
I wondered about that!?
 
F

Falcon

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 07/20/2011 11:50 AM, Falcon wrote:
[..][..]
In the UK the difference between the price paid to someone like you
with PV panels and the average household tariff is, therefore, around
28p/kWh (31- 32 Euro-cents/kWh).
That is a spectacular difference. Here the tariff has gone down from 33c
to 28c since 1st Jan. Household rates for power are around 22-24 cents
depending on the contract. There are also cheaper deals for flat rates
and upfront contracts.

Tom, could you clarify the figures you quoted earlier, please? I think I've
misunderstood something along the line.

I thought you said that 2,000 kWh had been delivered by your panels in the
first six months of operation (which is pretty good) and that your
supplier, RWE, had just transferred 526¤ to your bank account, I assume as
a result of sales of surplus energy to the grid.

At an average feed-in price of 30 cents per kWh that suggests you sold ~
1,750 kWh of the 2,000 kWh generated to the grid, leaving just 250 kWh
consumed by yourself. Only 41 kWh of your PV-supplied power per month is
used to power your home? That can't be right, surely? I thought only your
surplus energy should be sold to the grid? I get through an average of 40-
50 kWh per WEEK and my consumption is well below the UK national average.

Is your personal electricity consumption figure really that low? or have I
done the sums wrong?

And I'm really not sure how a difference of ~5 cents between the price you
get and the price you pay for grid-supplies can result in a good return on
an 11,000¤ investment.

Have I misunderstood something?

[..]
 
T

Tom P

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:40:21 +0200, Tom P wrote ...

On 07/20/2011 11:50 AM, Falcon wrote: [..][..]
In the UK the difference between the price paid to someone like you
with PV panels and the average household tariff is, therefore, around
28p/kWh (31- 32 Euro-cents/kWh).
That is a spectacular difference. Here the tariff has gone down from 33c
to 28c since 1st Jan. Household rates for power are around 22-24 cents
depending on the contract. There are also cheaper deals for flat rates
and upfront contracts.

Tom, could you clarify the figures you quoted earlier, please? I think I've
misunderstood something along the line.

I thought you said that 2,000 kWh had been delivered by your panels in the
first six months of operation (which is pretty good) and that your
supplier, RWE, had just transferred 526¤ to your bank account, I assume as
a result of sales of surplus energy to the grid.

At an average feed-in price of 30 cents per kWh that suggests you sold ~
1,750 kWh of the 2,000 kWh generated to the grid, leaving just 250 kWh
consumed by yourself. Only 41 kWh of your PV-supplied power per month is
used to power your home? That can't be right, surely? I thought only your
surplus energy should be sold to the grid? I get through an average of 40-
50 kWh per WEEK and my consumption is well below the UK national average.

Is your personal electricity consumption figure really that low? or have I
done the sums wrong?

And I'm really not sure how a difference of ~5 cents between the price you
get and the price you pay for grid-supplies can result in a good return on
an 11,000¤ investment.

Have I misunderstood something?
In a word - yes. Everything.
[..]

Picture:

House wiring --<--<--Meter 1 -<--x--connection point--<--- grid
PV installation -->--Meter 2-->-/


There are two completely separate meters, one for domestic consumption,
one for the grid feed-in.
The grid feed-in feeds 100% of the power generated into the grid via its
own meter. The 2,000 kwh is what the PV installation has fed into the
grid as measured by the meter. This has absolutely nothing to do with
the domestic consumption. None of the power generated by the PV
installation is used privately.

In fact, our domestic power supplier is not even the same company as the
grid utility. We have a contract for power with a local city. The city
has a contract with the grid utility that lets them provide me with
power. Quite likely the grid utility has a contract to sell power from
my PV installation somewhere else.

As far as the payments are concerned, the agreement is that the grid
utility company pays a monthly installment calculated on the basis of
the projected power generation. At the end of the year the meter is read
and the balance settled. The actual yearly figure will then be used as a
basis for the monthly installment for the following year. This is
exactly the same as the procedure used for monthly installment payments
for power consumption, just the other way round.

That means that the 526¤ payment is less than the power is worth that
has actually gone into the grid. The balance will be settled at the end
of the year.

I hope that this clarifies things.
 
G

Giga2

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tom P said:
On 07/20/2011 04:03 PM, Falcon wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:40:21 +0200, Tom P wrote ...

On 07/20/2011 11:50 AM, Falcon wrote: [..][..]
In the UK the difference between the price paid to someone like you
with PV panels and the average household tariff is, therefore, around
28p/kWh (31- 32 Euro-cents/kWh).

That is a spectacular difference. Here the tariff has gone down from 33c
to 28c since 1st Jan. Household rates for power are around 22-24 cents
depending on the contract. There are also cheaper deals for flat rates
and upfront contracts.

Tom, could you clarify the figures you quoted earlier, please? I think
I've
misunderstood something along the line.

I thought you said that 2,000 kWh had been delivered by your panels in
the
first six months of operation (which is pretty good) and that your
supplier, RWE, had just transferred 526¤ to your bank account, I assume
as
a result of sales of surplus energy to the grid.

At an average feed-in price of 30 cents per kWh that suggests you sold ~
1,750 kWh of the 2,000 kWh generated to the grid, leaving just 250 kWh
consumed by yourself. Only 41 kWh of your PV-supplied power per month is
used to power your home? That can't be right, surely? I thought only your
surplus energy should be sold to the grid? I get through an average of
40-
50 kWh per WEEK and my consumption is well below the UK national average.

Is your personal electricity consumption figure really that low? or have
I
done the sums wrong?

And I'm really not sure how a difference of ~5 cents between the price
you
get and the price you pay for grid-supplies can result in a good return
on
an 11,000¤ investment.

Have I misunderstood something?
In a word - yes. Everything.
[..]

Picture:

House wiring --<--<--Meter 1 -<--x--connection point--<--- grid
PV installation -->--Meter 2-->-/


There are two completely separate meters, one for domestic consumption,
one for the grid feed-in.
The grid feed-in feeds 100% of the power generated into the grid via its
own meter. The 2,000 kwh is what the PV installation has fed into the grid
as measured by the meter. This has absolutely nothing to do with the
domestic consumption. None of the power generated by the PV installation
is used privately.

In fact, our domestic power supplier is not even the same company as the
grid utility. We have a contract for power with a local city. The city has
a contract with the grid utility that lets them provide me with power.
Quite likely the grid utility has a contract to sell power from my PV
installation somewhere else.

As far as the payments are concerned, the agreement is that the grid
utility company pays a monthly installment calculated on the basis of the
projected power generation. At the end of the year the meter is read and
the balance settled. The actual yearly figure will then be used as a basis
for the monthly installment for the following year. This is exactly the
same as the procedure used for monthly installment payments for power
consumption, just the other way round.

That means that the 526¤ payment is less than the power is worth that has
actually gone into the grid. The balance will be settled at the end of the
year.

I hope that this clarifies things.
That surprises me. I suppose it is financially better for you (get 5c more
per kwh) but surely it would be more efficient for you to use as much of the
generated power directly. Surely the meter could still be in the line and
calculations could happen in exactly the same way (I think this is the way
it works here in UK)?
 
F

Falcon

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 07/20/2011 04:03 PM, Falcon wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:40:21 +0200, Tom P wrote ...

On 07/20/2011 11:50 AM, Falcon wrote: [..][..]
In the UK the difference between the price paid to someone like you
with PV panels and the average household tariff is, therefore, around
28p/kWh (31- 32 Euro-cents/kWh).

That is a spectacular difference. Here the tariff has gone down from 33c
to 28c since 1st Jan. Household rates for power are around 22-24 cents
depending on the contract. There are also cheaper deals for flat rates
and upfront contracts.

Tom, could you clarify the figures you quoted earlier, please? I think I've
misunderstood something along the line.

I thought you said that 2,000 kWh had been delivered by your panels in the
first six months of operation (which is pretty good) and that your
supplier, RWE, had just transferred 526¤ to your bank account, I assume as
a result of sales of surplus energy to the grid.

At an average feed-in price of 30 cents per kWh that suggests you sold ~
1,750 kWh of the 2,000 kWh generated to the grid, leaving just 250 kWh
consumed by yourself. Only 41 kWh of your PV-supplied power per month is
used to power your home? That can't be right, surely? I thought only your
surplus energy should be sold to the grid? I get through an average of 40-
50 kWh per WEEK and my consumption is well below the UK national average.

Is your personal electricity consumption figure really that low? or have I
done the sums wrong?

And I'm really not sure how a difference of ~5 cents between the price you
get and the price you pay for grid-supplies can result in a good return on
an 11,000¤ investment.

Have I misunderstood something?
In a word - yes. Everything.
[..]

Picture:

House wiring --<--<--Meter 1 -<--x--connection point--<--- grid
PV installation -->--Meter 2-->-/


There are two completely separate meters, one for domestic consumption,
one for the grid feed-in.
The grid feed-in feeds 100% of the power generated into the grid via its
own meter. The 2,000 kwh is what the PV installation has fed into the
grid as measured by the meter. This has absolutely nothing to do with
the domestic consumption. None of the power generated by the PV
installation is used privately.

In fact, our domestic power supplier is not even the same company as the
grid utility. We have a contract for power with a local city. The city
has a contract with the grid utility that lets them provide me with
power. Quite likely the grid utility has a contract to sell power from
my PV installation somewhere else.

As far as the payments are concerned, the agreement is that the grid
utility company pays a monthly installment calculated on the basis of
the projected power generation. At the end of the year the meter is read
and the balance settled. The actual yearly figure will then be used as a
basis for the monthly installment for the following year. This is
exactly the same as the procedure used for monthly installment payments
for power consumption, just the other way round.

That means that the 526¤ payment is less than the power is worth that
has actually gone into the grid. The balance will be settled at the end
of the year.

I hope that this clarifies things.

Yes, thanks Tom. That explains it. As you probably guessed, normal domestic
PV installations work differently here in the UK. In your case the energy
you generate has no effect on the amount of power you draw from the grid,
in the UK the energy we generate reduces our reliance on supplies from the
grid.
 
F

Falcon

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tom P said:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:38:53 +0200, Tom P wrote ...

On 07/20/2011 04:03 PM, Falcon wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:40:21 +0200, Tom P wrote ...

On 07/20/2011 11:50 AM, Falcon wrote:
[..][..]
In the UK the difference between the price paid to someone like you
with PV panels and the average household tariff is, therefore, around
28p/kWh (31- 32 Euro-cents/kWh).

That is a spectacular difference. Here the tariff has gone down from 33c
to 28c since 1st Jan. Household rates for power are around 22-24 cents
depending on the contract. There are also cheaper deals for flat rates
and upfront contracts.

Tom, could you clarify the figures you quoted earlier, please? I think
I've
misunderstood something along the line.

I thought you said that 2,000 kWh had been delivered by your panels in
the
first six months of operation (which is pretty good) and that your
supplier, RWE, had just transferred 526? to your bank account, I assume
as
a result of sales of surplus energy to the grid.

At an average feed-in price of 30 cents per kWh that suggests you sold ~
1,750 kWh of the 2,000 kWh generated to the grid, leaving just 250 kWh
consumed by yourself. Only 41 kWh of your PV-supplied power per month is
used to power your home? That can't be right, surely? I thought only your
surplus energy should be sold to the grid? I get through an average of
40-
50 kWh per WEEK and my consumption is well below the UK national average.

Is your personal electricity consumption figure really that low? or have
I
done the sums wrong?

And I'm really not sure how a difference of ~5 cents between the price
you
get and the price you pay for grid-supplies can result in a good return
on
an 11,000? investment.

Have I misunderstood something?
In a word - yes. Everything.
[..]

Picture:

House wiring --<--<--Meter 1 -<--x--connection point--<--- grid
PV installation -->--Meter 2-->-/


There are two completely separate meters, one for domestic consumption,
one for the grid feed-in.
The grid feed-in feeds 100% of the power generated into the grid via its
own meter. The 2,000 kwh is what the PV installation has fed into the grid
as measured by the meter. This has absolutely nothing to do with the
domestic consumption. None of the power generated by the PV installation
is used privately.

In fact, our domestic power supplier is not even the same company as the
grid utility. We have a contract for power with a local city. The city has
a contract with the grid utility that lets them provide me with power.
Quite likely the grid utility has a contract to sell power from my PV
installation somewhere else.

As far as the payments are concerned, the agreement is that the grid
utility company pays a monthly installment calculated on the basis of the
projected power generation. At the end of the year the meter is read and
the balance settled. The actual yearly figure will then be used as a basis
for the monthly installment for the following year. This is exactly the
same as the procedure used for monthly installment payments for power
consumption, just the other way round.

That means that the 526? payment is less than the power is worth that has
actually gone into the grid. The balance will be settled at the end of the
year.

I hope that this clarifies things.
That surprises me. I suppose it is financially better for you (get 5c more
per kwh) but surely it would be more efficient for you to use as much of the
generated power directly. Surely the meter could still be in the line and
calculations could happen in exactly the same way (I think this is the way
it works here in UK)?

Yes, normal domestic PV installations work differently here in the UK. In
your case the energy you generate has no effect on the amount of power you
draw from the grid, in the UK the energy we generate reduces our reliance
on supplies from the grid.

I don't know what Tom consumes in a year, but if it's anywhere near the UK
average (3,300 kWh), the money he makes from his PV installation could just
about offset his entire electricity bill. PV manufacturers here in the UK
usually estimate that PV installations will reduce their customers bills by
around a third (around £110 p.a.) and their income from 'sales' to the grid
could be as high as £1,000 per year. If those assumptions are correct, PV
installations should virtually offset an average household's entire
electricity AND gas bill.

As I said earlier, what concerns me is not necessarily the viability of PV
on a personal level, it's the effect they have on electricity prices for
those who cannot afford them.
 
F

Falcon

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:53:27 +0100, "Giga2" wrote ... [..]
That surprises me. I suppose it is financially better for you (get 5c
more per kwh) but surely it would be more efficient for you to use as
much of the generated power directly. Surely the meter could still be
in the line and calculations could happen in exactly the same way (I
think this is the way it works here in UK)?

Yes, normal domestic PV installations work differently here in the UK. In
your case the energy you generate has no effect on the amount of power you
draw from the grid, in the UK the energy we generate reduces our reliance
on supplies from the grid.

Correction: In Tom's case.
 
H

hda

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 07/20/2011 04:03 PM, Falcon wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:40:21 +0200, Tom P wrote ...

On 07/20/2011 11:50 AM, Falcon wrote: [..][..]
In the UK the difference between the price paid to someone like you
with PV panels and the average household tariff is, therefore, around
28p/kWh (31- 32 Euro-cents/kWh).

That is a spectacular difference. Here the tariff has gone down from 33c
to 28c since 1st Jan. Household rates for power are around 22-24 cents
depending on the contract. There are also cheaper deals for flat rates
and upfront contracts.

Tom, could you clarify the figures you quoted earlier, please? I think I've
misunderstood something along the line.

I thought you said that 2,000 kWh had been delivered by your panels in the
first six months of operation (which is pretty good) and that your
supplier, RWE, had just transferred 526€ to your bank account, I assume as
a result of sales of surplus energy to the grid.

At an average feed-in price of 30 cents per kWh that suggests you sold ~
1,750 kWh of the 2,000 kWh generated to the grid, leaving just 250 kWh
consumed by yourself. Only 41 kWh of your PV-supplied power per month is
used to power your home? That can't be right, surely? I thought only your
surplus energy should be sold to the grid? I get through an average of 40-
50 kWh per WEEK and my consumption is well below the UK national average.

Is your personal electricity consumption figure really that low? or have I
done the sums wrong?

And I'm really not sure how a difference of ~5 cents between the price you
get and the price you pay for grid-supplies can result in a good return on
an 11,000€ investment.

Have I misunderstood something?
In a word - yes. Everything.
[..]

Picture:

House wiring --<--<--Meter 1 -<--x--connection point--<--- grid
PV installation -->--Meter 2-->-/


There are two completely separate meters, one for domestic consumption,
one for the grid feed-in.
The grid feed-in feeds 100% of the power generated into the grid via its
own meter. The 2,000 kwh is what the PV installation has fed into the
grid as measured by the meter. This has absolutely nothing to do with
the domestic consumption. None of the power generated by the PV
installation is used privately.

In fact, our domestic power supplier is not even the same company as the
grid utility. We have a contract for power with a local city. The city
has a contract with the grid utility that lets them provide me with
power. Quite likely the grid utility has a contract to sell power from
my PV installation somewhere else.

As far as the payments are concerned, the agreement is that the grid
utility company pays a monthly installment calculated on the basis of
the projected power generation. At the end of the year the meter is read
and the balance settled. The actual yearly figure will then be used as a
basis for the monthly installment for the following year. This is
exactly the same as the procedure used for monthly installment payments
for power consumption, just the other way round.

That means that the 526€ payment is less than the power is worth that
has actually gone into the grid. The balance will be settled at the end
of the year.

I hope that this clarifies things.

Yeah, heavily subsidized.

I pay 7.9 eurocent to DONG plus (13.3 - 4.7) eurocent in Tax per KWh
== 16.5 eurocents. Next on top fixed costs for delivery: 5.4
eurocents. So 21.9 (incl. VAT)

You receive 526/2000 = 26.3 (incl VAT) eurocents per KWh

Why do you receive (26.3 - 7.9) more than marketprice ?
 
Top