Considering Solar

[alarmguy]

Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Originally Posted by Shannow
alarmguy, in Oz, they tellyou right at the first phone call that they do not provideblackout power.

An Oz battery behind the meter (Redback) can provide that utility of being blackout proof (for a while)


Hey, dont misunderstand my post. Im not knocking solar.
Here is the USA unlike Oz most people are not aware, meaning full disclosure was not provided to the homeowner that solar will not power your house if the electric grid is down in your area. Im not saying no one knows but it was big enough news here during the California blackouts because of the forest fires, people with solar were surprised that they too had no power.. Meaning it will not work during a power outage.

Sure, money can fix anything but very rare anyone will double the cost of their system having a back up power supply installed for their solar panels as this is the only way to have solar power during a black out/power outage.

I think solar is pretty cool for anyone who thinks they will be in the same home for a couple decades and good roof to install it on, most here aren't lucky enough to have it remote.Then there are areas, like where I live that ban them.

Solar owners in CA understand how their solar works.
I am not sure why you think we were caught off guard.
I can tell you the solar companies offer battery based "off the grid" options; they would love the upsale...
Anyways, everyone I know loves their solar.
All good.


I guess it was the fake news that I read. Should have just stuck to Fox News ) but once in a while I "stray"

From Bloomberg News ... Click here

SAME THING WITHOUT THE "YAHOO"

Peace ...

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by Shannow
alarmguy, in Oz, they tellyou right at the first phone call that they do not provideblackout power.

An Oz battery behind the meter (Redback) can provide that utility of being blackout proof (for a while)

My inverters have 2000 watts each no matter what, direct drive off of them. So that's 4k watts no matter what, but since its 250ft from house... big wire, lmao

 

[OVERKILL]

IIRC, there is regulation on grid-tie systems that kills output if the grid-tie is extinguished. This is done for the purpose of local safety, as having a node back-feeding a segment of a grid could be extremely dangerous for line workers or other people operating under the premise that nothing is live.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Originally Posted by alarmguy


I guess it was the fake news that I read. Should have just stuck to Fox News ) but once in a while I "stray"

From Bloomberg News ... Click here

SAME THING WITHOUT THE "YAHOO"

Peace ...

Anyone who spends $15K or more that doesn't understand what they are buying deserves to be in the dark! Ha!
All good.

I can tell you, the blackouts have pushed many to consider battery backup.
It was a conversation at a party I attended last weekend; good for the solar companies.
I thought the battery lasted only a day or so, then you were stuck.
But no, apparently the sun recharges your battery the next day. Makes sense...

All good.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by alarmguy


I guess it was the fake news that I read. Should have just stuck to Fox News ) but once in a while I "stray"

From Bloomberg News ... Click here

SAME THING WITHOUT THE "YAHOO"

Peace ...

Anyone who spends $15K or more that doesn't understand what they are buying deserves to be in the dark! Ha!
All good.

I can tell you, the blackouts have pushed many to consider battery backup.
It was a conversation at a party I attended last weekend; good for the solar companies.
I thought the battery lasted only a day or so, then you were stuck.
But no, apparently the sun recharges your battery the next day. Makes sense...

All good.

Battery prices are pretty crazy right now, I'm waiting a few years and then going 100% off-grid except my internet.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by alarmguy


I guess it was the fake news that I read. Should have just stuck to Fox News ) but once in a while I "stray"

From Bloomberg News ... Click here

SAME THING WITHOUT THE "YAHOO"

Peace ...

Anyone who spends $15K or more that doesn't understand what they are buying deserves to be in the dark! Ha!
All good.

I can tell you, the blackouts have pushed many to consider battery backup.
It was a conversation at a party I attended last weekend; good for the solar companies.
I thought the battery lasted only a day or so, then you were stuck.
But no, apparently the sun recharges your battery the next day. Makes sense...

All good.


I think the grid-tie rules are still in effect, but perhaps there is a transfer switch scenario in play?

 

[Shannow]

OVERKILL is right...
System hasto disconnect fromthe mains when themains godown.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by alarmguy


I guess it was the fake news that I read. Should have just stuck to Fox News ) but once in a while I "stray"

From Bloomberg News ... Click here

SAME THING WITHOUT THE "YAHOO"

Peace ...

Anyone who spends $15K or more that doesn't understand what they are buying deserves to be in the dark! Ha!
All good.

I can tell you, the blackouts have pushed many to consider battery backup.
It was a conversation at a party I attended last weekend; good for the solar companies.
I thought the battery lasted only a day or so, then you were stuck.
But no, apparently the sun recharges your battery the next day. Makes sense...

All good.


I think the grid-tie rules are still in effect, but perhaps there is a transfer switch scenario in play?

If you have battery...cut the cord. No need for grid.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by alarmguy


I guess it was the fake news that I read. Should have just stuck to Fox News ) but once in a while I "stray"

From Bloomberg News ... Click here

SAME THING WITHOUT THE "YAHOO"

Peace ...

Anyone who spends $15K or more that doesn't understand what they are buying deserves to be in the dark! Ha!
All good.

I can tell you, the blackouts have pushed many to consider battery backup.
It was a conversation at a party I attended last weekend; good for the solar companies.
I thought the battery lasted only a day or so, then you were stuck.
But no, apparently the sun recharges your battery the next day. Makes sense...

All good.


I think the grid-tie rules are still in effect, but perhaps there is a transfer switch scenario in play?

If you have battery...cut the cord. No need for grid.


I think if that's the case some of these folks would need larger systems. They are typically sized for having mains support.

 

[Ws6]

Interesting. Mine isn't. Dunno what others do. I am at a yearly "net zero" or near it.

 

[alarmguy]

If you are connected to the electric grid/power company and If you dont have a very expensive battery back up system which is an additional cost of around the same cost as you paid for the solar system, you are not and never will have power during a black out.
To greatly add to this cost is the fact that you will need to replace those batteries because at best, they will only last about half the age of the solar panels, so you will have at least 1 time and most likely 2 times those $7000 each batteries will need to be replaced.

Taking the above into account that solar batteries alone cost in the $7000 each range, plus you need all the additional equipment required for them and then the additional equipment required by your electric utility in order to allow you to use the battery back up during a power outage.

Some day the cost will come drastically down for solar, we are still in the dark ages and only in the beginning of solar energy.
I think the next breakthrough will be economical roof shingle type panels that will blend in with the homes instead of the big black boxes.

Source - Click


By the way, contrary to what some might think, I think solar is REALLY cool, I love the idea and if you can do it and works for you that is great.
The reason for my posts are, well, here in the USA there are some less then honest sales people and companies out there that do not make homeowners aware of these things and the only reason for my posts, that homeowners understand what they are buying when they buy it.

Then add to that, these Federal Tax breaks, well, once they are gone, guess what?
Within 6 months or so prices will come down, people will find, these tax breaks just made it easy for companies and their sales people to make fatter paychecks. More or less, in many cases, by all means not all, more so for people who REALLY shop around, but in many cases, the tax breaks are lining the pockets of the companies and salespeople. More or less, the 30% people think they are getting, is more like 10% and the company or sales person is taking the other 15% or more and the solar manufacturers are in on it too, making more money off the tax breaks.

As far as the environment? Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste then nuclear power per watt generated.
Source - Click

(yes, I have too much time on my hands *L*)

BTW - I repeat, I am NOT against solar, I would most likely have it, if I was a bit younger just starting out, if I was in a different type of community and if I could find a company to do a first class job. I have seen some good ones but I have also seen a lot of sloppy ones.
....

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Ws6


Interesting. Mine isn't. Dunno what others do. I am at a yearly "net zero" or near it.


Right, but yours is out on your lawn, because you have a large piece of property. You also aren't trying to charge an EV. There's a guy I follow on twitter who bought a tracking array and recently a Model 3 Tesla and he posts his performance data online:
http://www.theravinaproject.org/

They have a 2.8kW array.

There is a breakdown of what the system provides of their power on the solar data page:
http://www.theravinaproject.org/Solar_Data.htm

Looking at 2016, the most recent column, you'll see that in January, it only provided 14.7% of their electricity

whereas in the summer months, it got as high as 55.9% in July. The lowest point was December, with only 12.7%. These percentages of course align with the poor CF's for those months. This of course was from before they got the Tesla as well.

 

[Bladecutter]

Originally Posted by alarmguy
IAs far as the environment? Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste then nuclear power per watt generated.


Which one creates more waste if things go horribly wrong, and the energy production unit has a catastrophic failure?
I can't remember the last time I ever heard of a solar panel being damaged that required a 1k square mile exclusion zone to be created.

(I have just enough time on my hands)

BC.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Ws6


Interesting. Mine isn't. Dunno what others do. I am at a yearly "net zero" or near it.


Right, but yours is out on your lawn, because you have a large piece of property. You also aren't trying to charge an EV. There's a guy I follow on twitter who bought a tracking array and recently a Model 3 Tesla and he posts his performance data online:
http://www.theravinaproject.org/

They have a 2.8kW array.

There is a breakdown of what the system provides of their power on the solar data page:
http://www.theravinaproject.org/Solar_Data.htm

Looking at 2016, the most recent column, you'll see that in January, it only provided 14.7% of their electricity

whereas in the summer months, it got as high as 55.9% in July. The lowest point was December, with only 12.7%. These percentages of course align with the poor CF's for those months. This of course was from before they got the Tesla as well.

2.8kW is insanely small. What is that, dog-house mounted? ROFL!

Normal house-mount systems are 5-10kW.

Also, yes, I do plan to go PEV when they have enough range to be practical.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by Bladecutter
Originally Posted by alarmguy
IAs far as the environment? Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste then nuclear power per watt generated.


Which one creates more waste if things go horribly wrong, and the energy production unit has a catastrophic failure?
I can't remember the last time I ever heard of a solar panel being damaged that required a 1k square mile exclusion zone to be created.

(I have just enough time on my hands)

BC.


You can argue about the minutia all you want, but please remember that the deforestation and fires created by Native Americans caused global climate change. At this point, I really don't care one bit. I did the solar deal for the money (I will barely pay any taxes this year! FINALLY! I feel like I stuck it to the man. Just...a...little...tiny...bit.), and because I want to be off-grid in 5-10 years, and this is just another step. The first step was buying a homestead in the middle of nowhere on well water, etc.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Bladecutter
Originally Posted by alarmguy
IAs far as the environment? Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste then nuclear power per watt generated.


Which one creates more waste if things go horribly wrong, and the energy production unit has a catastrophic failure?
I can't remember the last time I ever heard of a solar panel being damaged that required a 1k square mile exclusion zone to be created.

(I have just enough time on my hands)

BC.


Would depend entirely on the reactor design. The unit at TMI bricked itself, that's about it. The RBMK, which I assume you were referencing, was an incredibly poor design that lacked containment. After the incident, all RBMK's were upgraded to feature containment so that the incident couldn't be repeated.

Nuclear power is the only generation method on the planet that is required to be accountable for its entire waste stream. That doesn't mean there aren't issues with that waste stream that need better solutions, but it does mean we know how much of it there is and where it is.

BTW, good luck trying to mine and process the materials for solar panels with energy produced from solar panels. Same goes with wind turbines, neither can power industry. Right now there are numerous 4th gen nuclear reactor designs whose intention is to run entire mining operations and remote communities. It can do this because it produces power all the time, with a density factor not another source on the planet comes even remotely close to.

This is a good read if one is interested, there's a whole heck of a lot not accounted for in processing of rare earth metals, and of course radioactive tailing ponds aren't required to have exclusion zones....

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Ws6


Interesting. Mine isn't. Dunno what others do. I am at a yearly "net zero" or near it.


Right, but yours is out on your lawn, because you have a large piece of property. You also aren't trying to charge an EV. There's a guy I follow on twitter who bought a tracking array and recently a Model 3 Tesla and he posts his performance data online:
http://www.theravinaproject.org/

They have a 2.8kW array.

There is a breakdown of what the system provides of their power on the solar data page:
http://www.theravinaproject.org/Solar_Data.htm

Looking at 2016, the most recent column, you'll see that in January, it only provided 14.7% of their electricity

whereas in the summer months, it got as high as 55.9% in July. The lowest point was December, with only 12.7%. These percentages of course align with the poor CF's for those months. This of course was from before they got the Tesla as well.

2.8kW is insanely small. What is that, dog-house mounted? ROFL!

Normal house-mount systems are 5-10kW.

Also, yes, I do plan to go PEV when they have enough range to be practical.


It's a tracking array, which likely has an impact on size, but also makes it more efficient. Your unit is fixed position, correct? So in the same location, his unit would produce more electricity per kW of installed capacity than yours; would have a higher capacity factor.

But anyways, you seemed to have missed my point, which was that array sizing isn't necessarily done to match household consumption, and even if it is sized larger, seasonal variance in the ability for the system to satisfy demand can be massive, as you can see from the figures I quoted. Grid-tie systems are typically done by people who have no intention of running their place without mains power, and so this sort of data is never looked at. So for what is likely the majority of these folks, just adding storage isn't going to be a workable solution.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Ws6


Interesting. Mine isn't. Dunno what others do. I am at a yearly "net zero" or near it.


Right, but yours is out on your lawn, because you have a large piece of property. You also aren't trying to charge an EV. There's a guy I follow on twitter who bought a tracking array and recently a Model 3 Tesla and he posts his performance data online:
http://www.theravinaproject.org/

They have a 2.8kW array.

There is a breakdown of what the system provides of their power on the solar data page:
http://www.theravinaproject.org/Solar_Data.htm

Looking at 2016, the most recent column, you'll see that in January, it only provided 14.7% of their electricity

whereas in the summer months, it got as high as 55.9% in July. The lowest point was December, with only 12.7%. These percentages of course align with the poor CF's for those months. This of course was from before they got the Tesla as well.

2.8kW is insanely small. What is that, dog-house mounted? ROFL!

Normal house-mount systems are 5-10kW.

Also, yes, I do plan to go PEV when they have enough range to be practical.


It's a tracking array, which likely has an impact on size, but also makes it more efficient. Your unit is fixed position, correct? So in the same location, his unit would produce more electricity per kW of installed capacity than yours; would have a higher capacity factor.

But anyways, you seemed to have missed my point, which was that array sizing isn't necessarily done to match household consumption, and even if it is sized larger, seasonal variance in the ability for the system to satisfy demand can be massive, as you can see from the figures I quoted. Grid-tie systems are typically done by people who have no intention of running their place without mains power, and so this sort of data is never looked at. So for what is likely the majority of these folks, just adding storage isn't going to be a workable solution.


Of course. You do have to size it with intent in mind.

Annually, a tracker produces 40% more electricity.

2.8x1.4=3.92.


During peak summer consumption/production times, 65% more.
2.8x1.65=4.62

Still absurdly small, depending of course on their house.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Ws6


Of course. You do have to size it with intent in mind.

Annually, a tracker produces 40% more electricity.

2.8x1.4=3.92.


During peak summer consumption/production times, 65% more.
2.8x1.65=4.62

Still absurdly small, depending of course on their house.


Yes, but do you think Average Joe is gathering the type and volume of data that these folks have on their consumption and thus requirements when he's putting in a Grid-tie? I'm going to say no.

Let's use your 12.95kW fixed position as a comparison here, with the acknowledged caveat that rooftop, which most of these people have, will be even less efficient.

So, we'll run your calculations backwards:
12.95/1.4 = 9.25kW nominal tracker equivalence
12.95/1.65 = 7.85kW nominal tracker summer equivalence

December:
- his 2.8kW tracker produced 123.5kWh; 5.9% CF, and this provided 12.7% of his electricity. This gives us an electricity consumption figure of 972.4kWh that month.
- your 9.25kW equivalent would have produced 406kWh, and thus provided 41.75% of his electricity, which means that for off-grid, the unit is still dramatically undersized by a massive margin.

June:
- his 2.8kW tracker produced 518kWh; 25.7% CF, and this provided 50% of his electricity. This gives us an electricity consumption figure of 1,036kWh for that month.
- your 7.85kW equivalent would have produced 1,453kWh, and thus provided him with a 417kWh surplus; 40% more than he needed, which would make it seem like the unit was over-sized for the application.

As these figures show, seasonal variance can have an absolutely massive impact on performance, but this isn't factored into folks doing grid-tie because they are never going to have to rely on the units, paired with storage, being able to power their homes.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Ws6


Of course. You do have to size it with intent in mind.

Annually, a tracker produces 40% more electricity.

2.8x1.4=3.92.


During peak summer consumption/production times, 65% more.
2.8x1.65=4.62

Still absurdly small, depending of course on their house.


Yes, but do you think Average Joe is gathering the type and volume of data that these folks have on their consumption and thus requirements when he's putting in a Grid-tie? I'm going to say no.

Let's use your 12.95kW fixed position as a comparison here, with the acknowledged caveat that rooftop, which most of these people have, will be even less efficient.

So, we'll run your calculations backwards:
12.95/1.4 = 9.25kW nominal tracker equivalence
12.95/1.65 = 7.85kW nominal tracker summer equivalence

December:
- his 2.8kW tracker produced 123.5kWh; 5.9% CF, and this provided 12.7% of his electricity. This gives us an electricity consumption figure of 972.4kWh that month.
- your 9.25kW equivalent would have produced 406kWh, and thus provided 41.75% of his electricity, which means that for off-grid, the unit is still dramatically undersized by a massive margin.

June:
- his 2.8kW tracker produced 518kWh; 25.7% CF, and this provided 50% of his electricity. This gives us an electricity consumption figure of 1,036kWh for that month.
- your 7.85kW equivalent would have produced 1,453kWh, and thus provided him with a 417kWh surplus; 40% more than he needed, which would make it seem like the unit was over-sized for the application.

As these figures show, seasonal variance can have an absolutely massive impact on performance, but this isn't factored into folks doing grid-tie because they are never going to have to rely on the units, paired with storage, being able to power their homes.




I agree that right now, it is not appropriate for off-grid. However, my HVAC is a 13 SEER heat-pump. By the time I go off-grid, I will have replaced that. Winter hits the hardest, and with a more efficient heat pump, it will dramatically lower consumption. How much remains to be seen, but I suspect it will be significant.