EC examines the need for new rules on solar panel installations
IARU Region 1 reports the European Commission is to examine need for new rules on the environmental impact of photovoltaics

IARU-R1 Political Relations Committee (PRC) responded recently to a European Commission Roadmap on the environmental impact of photovoltaics. The radio spectrum is an important finite natural resource which must be protected. While PV technology of itself is to be welcomed, the IARU submission pointed out the inherent problems of non-compliant installations, particularly the installation or retro-fitting of optimisers which can produce significant spectrum pollution for very limited efficiency increase.

The Roadmap and responses may be viewed on the Commission website here
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-re ... oltaics_en

or on this website on the PRC Responses to Public and Other Consultations
https://www.iaru-r1.org/about-us/commit ... ultations/

Source IARU Region 1 https://iaru-r1.org/

Does the affect us in Blighty.
I thought we are Brexit Free and decide to do what WE want.
Does the E.U. still make the rules for this Nation are we still obliged to follow suit?
Can we not say to Jonni Foreigner "Stick your Rools with your Onions,
Bratwursts and whatever the EU producers".
For we are British.
Viva La Brexit.

Of course, those are the EU rules, now we make our own rules if we don't think their rules are sufficient then we can make our own and ignore theirs.

Now we can do best for the interests of the UK

These rules are a good bench mark if we would wish to have comparable rules ourselves and also if those in authority regard the interference as serious wishing to do something about it if not what can I say .........enjoy the QRM OM and stop moaning on about it

You seem very bitter Adrian, you know its not good for your mental health to spend so much time procrastinating over things you have no control over. What is, is, what will be will be, you nor I can do anything about it, diverting every topic that appears on this site to have a dig at brexit isnt healthy,
Find some peace b4 you have an episode and perhaps take your own advice?

If you lot want to keep retrofitting inefficient interference producing optimisers I say go for it, you'll probably even pick them up cheap once the EU clamps down on them..... another victory for the Brexiteers.

Why would they clamp down on it?
They probably comply with their regulations that they screwed up in the first place, and they haven't corrected their mess in so many years, so why now?

Now is the chance for the UK to make the regs like they were intended in the first place, even by the EU

The problem seems to be, a once compliant installation that abided by the regulations becomes a non compliant installation once it has been tampered with, ie. the manufacturers optimiser removed and retrofitted with a slightly more efficient one but one that's more pollutant to the radio spectrum therefore the regulations need to be revised to rectify this ...in answer to "Why would they clamp down on it?"

Has the UK raised similar concerns about rectifying this issue or uptil now have they ignored it?

THe regulations were wrongly composed in the first place, allowing much more interference than they were intended to, and they did not correct that, so it seems futile now to correct another issue, that probably has less negative effect than their original mess up.

I suppose it just looks good to throw their weight around, quoting from the rules they got wrong at the start.

According to what i've read, the regulations allow a percentage of interference in relation to an optimisers output and efficiency, the offending non-compliant optimisers being retrofitted are exceeding the allowed ratio. Now that those regulations have red flagged an issue how in your opinion were they wrongly composed in the first place bearing in mind regulations aren't set in stone and are constantly evolving?

It isn't my opinion, it has been widely stated.
They decided on the maximum acceptable level of interference, then applied that to each device in the installation, instead of to the whole installation as was the intention.
Not my opinion at all!

..the intention of who?
Quote;
"The main benefits would be improving the environmental performance as well as the energy yield of these
products, thus increasing the share of renewable energy, while concurrently reducing their overall environmental
footprint. Preliminary estimations indicate that the yield of the stock of photovoltaic installations in 2030 would
increase by ~14TWh (a 6% increase when compared to the business-as-usual situation) in presence of a market
with more environment-friendly products; this would also be accompanied by a 4% decrease in their Gross Energy
Requirement (i.e. in the amount of energy resources consumed in making available the products on the market)."

Surely is that not a win win scenario as opposed to your suggestion any action to redress the issue now is futile?

I don't see the context there???

No context?
That's a quoted passage from the Inception Impact Assessment showing what you accuse them of not correcting before moving onto another issue is bunkum, I took it for granted you had read what was on the table buy clearly you haven't.
The assessment offers a package of measures and options, your stance thus far has you in Option 1 - (no action) as you think it futile pushing for further measures without first revisiting the past (even though the past is included in the further measures.

For instance
- take products off the market that are of a low quality thus implying higher life cycle costs (as lower product
quality entails lower yield and/or lower durability)
- foster module and inverter designs that have improved long-term energy yield, circularity (i.e. improved ability to
be repaired and recycled) and smart readiness.

None of that has much to do with what I commented on, so don't make it look like I commented on aspects I did not!


"your stance thus far has you in Option 1 - (no action) as you think it futile pushing for further measures without first revisiting the past (even though the past is included in the further measures. "

I said that in relation to RFI, not the whole exercise, some one i=even put my statement in bold, clearly saying interference