That's Scotland's entire population served.

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, Dillsue said:

Put a duct in so you can easily change the cable if needed?? I don't know what the regs say but with a duct run to a "safe" area either end you may be able to run singles in the duct which will be way cheaper than an equivalent SWA.

That wouldnt comply, A plastic duct isnt mechanical protection.

Edited 10 hours ago by Roger440

[ProDave]

The AC/DC thing.  Volt drop in AC is critical, with PV it manifests itself as voltage rise, i.e. the voltage at the inverter will be higher than the voltage when it gets to the house.  Now most inverters have an upper limit where they will limit power output or shut down completely.  This is typically 253V.  If your grid voltage is already high, there might not be much tolerance and the inverter may shut down often.

 

Voltage drop on DC will still give the same power loss but is very unlikely to cause the inverter to shut down, so does not cause much of a problem.

[sgt_woulds]

11 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

That wouldnt comply, A plastic duct isnt mechanical protection.

 

 

Correct hence my earlier post:

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, sgt_woulds said:

 

 

 

High voltage AC can be protected with affordable and easily available RCD.  If someone puts a shovel through a buried AC cable, the power cuts in the blink of an eye, and the inverter shuts down.  

 

If the same spade goes through a buried DC cable, it forms a direct circuit with the solar panels at full power until the sun sets!

 

Again, I've been out of the game for a long time, and I know that DC RCM are now available for connection between the panels and field cables, but CMIIR, these don't work as quickly as an AC RCD, and are costly .  With long buried DC field cables you will also need to use very expensive DC specific double insulated and armoured cables.  Or 'ordinary' double insulated DC cables in armoured conduit.  

 

It would be usefull to hear from any practicing Solar installers / electricians for their thoughts

 

 

 

 

 

[Ed_]

15 hours ago, Roger440 said:

Summary. Electricity will get more expensive. Whatever government ministers might say. But we all know they lie, so i guess we shouldnt be surprised.

 

Pre and post pandemic is a different universe for large construction projects, cost inflation has been brutal. There is, unfortunately, a lot of fake news around, like the recent loud protests in certain newspapers that the cost of net zero is £7tn. A figure that is deceitfully incorrect - the cost of net zero in the paper from which the £7tn is dishonestly derived is £380bn. Not trivial, but very different.

The question is which generation source is the cheapest going forwards, given we need new generation, and it is probably pretty similar for renewables and gas taken as a system. What is not included in that cost and is arguably the most important factor is the uncosted effects - polution, climate change, funding of dictators and wars, volatility.

Pick your poison.

 

Oh, and an interesting point that is usually ignored is that given the highest cost generator sets the price for that slot, when considering the system costs of renewables you should account for the fact that if we didn't have renewables the electricity price every day would be much higher as it is the most expensive generators that it is kicking out of the mix. When you look at "gas prices"

https://eciu.net/analysis/reports/2025/marginal-gains-how-wind-is-pushing-gas-out-of-the-power-market-and-cutting-costs

 

On 15/01/2026 at 11:24, Roger440 said:

 

Gas is, i understand, circa £55 v yesterdays 20 year commitment to paying £95.

I don't believe this is correct. Wholesale prices yesterday were around £100, that price will have been set by gas generation.

I think you might be quoting the price of gas as being around £55/MWh. CCGT efficiency in converting energy in the form of gas to electricity is around 60% so that gives a price of £92, then there is the cost of the plant doing the conversion so that probably takes you up to the £100.

This is an easy mistake to make because it is a favourite technique employed by media commentators who know better but for some unknown reason choose to mislead.

 

[Roger440]

8 minutes ago, Ed_ said:

 

Pre and post pandemic is a different universe for large construction projects, cost inflation has been brutal. There is, unfortunately, a lot of fake news around, like the recent loud protests in certain newspapers that the cost of net zero is £7tn. A figure that is deceitfully incorrect - the cost of net zero in the paper from which the £7tn is dishonestly derived is £380bn. Not trivial, but very different.

The question is which generation source is the cheapest going forwards, given we need new generation, and it is probably pretty similar for renewables and gas taken as a system. What is not included in that cost and is arguably the most important factor is the uncosted effects - polution, climate change, funding of dictators and wars, volatility.

Pick your poison.

 

Oh, and an interesting point that is usually ignored is that given the highest cost generator sets the price for that slot, when considering the system costs of renewables you should account for the fact that if we didn't have renewables the electricity price every day would be much higher as it is the most expensive generators that it is kicking out of the mix. When you look at "gas prices"

https://eciu.net/analysis/reports/2025/marginal-gains-how-wind-is-pushing-gas-out-of-the-power-market-and-cutting-costs

 

I don't believe this is correct. Wholesale prices yesterday were around £100, that price will have been set by gas generation.

I think you might be quoting the price of gas as being around £55/MWh. CCGT efficiency in converting energy in the form of gas to electricity is around 60% so that gives a price of £92, then there is the cost of the plant doing the conversion so that probably takes you up to the £100.

This is an easy mistake to make because it is a favourite technique employed by media commentators who know better but for some unknown reason choose to mislead.

 

 

This is all good stuff. And interesting

 

But the point remains, electricity is going to go up, probably a lot. Not down as our gloourius leaders, and some on here kepp saying.

 

There are significant consequences to that especially if other countries dont see those increases.

[saveasteading]

 

4 hours ago, Roger440 said:

old mole plough 

They are not expensive to hire. We once put in about 150m of duct across a field and I think it only took a day. I wasn't there that day so haven't seen it done, but our op, who was used to driving a digger,  said it was easy.

[Dillsue]

5 hours ago, Roger440 said:

That wouldnt comply, A plastic duct isnt mechanical protection.

Isn't plastic conduit used for mech protection??

 

Ive no idea, but do the regs specifically say metallic protection??

[Alan Ambrose]

Interesting take in NYT:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/14/business/britain-wind-farms.html?unlocked_article_code=1.EVA.WLzl.GhDlPJD9mxzg

 

At the bottom: Some analysts, though, say that the British system locks in high prices. “It is hard to escape the conclusion that when all the costs are factored in, the deals struck today will push bills up at a time they are already high,” wrote Sam Dumitriu, head of policy at Britain Remade, a research organization.

 

I also learned that the thing being auctioned is the guaranteed min price. Not sure how long for or for what quantity of power.

[Ed_]

It's not just the guaranteed minimum price, it is the price. If electricity prices are higher than the strike price the difference is paid back to (effectively) the government, if lower the government tops up. The owner gets exactly the price, no more or less, per MWh generated.

 

It is the only way projects with huge upfront capital cost and low returns can be built. The cost of finance without certainty over return would kill them, its not at all like oil and gas projects which are generally far more profitable so can stomach higher project finance rates. That and oil companies can often fund off balance sheet rather than finance due to huge historic profits.

 

It is the whatever the capacity entered into the agreement generates, for 20 years. Usually it will be an exact number of turbines' output.