Solar Panels for the house

You bring up a good point. Also have to keep in mind that if my entire system is down for 3 months (let's say) due to repair part shortages etc.. I lose out on $ back incentives as well.

It's definitely not as simple as "micro-inverter better, string inverter bad" but I think over the cost of a system life of 25+ years, the micro take over.

Also seems like you're expected to have at least 5 inverters die in the span of 25yrs. I'd expect that number to climb higher past 25
 
Based off of that, just seems like micro-inverters, despite the higher cost, will balance out over the course of the system life; eventually becoming the better option.
 
Nunz said:
Based off of that, just seems like micro-inverters, despite the higher cost, will balance out over the course of the system life; eventually becoming the better option.
Click to expand...

i will most likely go micro-inverters but they will cost more

and you have to pull the cell to change a micro-inverter
and i know it will always be the one in the middle and hardest to get to:bleh:
they say you can walk on them but i wouldn't

a good thing about micro-inverter they will tell you how each cell is doing and generating



string inverters you just kill the power open a box on a wall and change a circuit board
 
Yeah I really like how individualistic the micro-inverter's are; specifically tied to each panel. The monitoring systems seem to be pretty legit as well.. but not covered under warranty as long.

I'll have the official proposal from that other company offering me the REC 365kw panels tomorrow morning. I will likely sign the Installer Agreement with them so they can move forward with the survey.
 
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/new-tech-can-make-your-house-a-solar-microgrid/

(There are two exceptions to this. The first is off-grid buildings that are set up to generate electricity from solar panels. The other exception is structures that have battery systems hooked up, though these can cost a lot—around $14,000 to install in some cases.)

To increase the number of exceptions, Enphase created the IQ8 Microinverter. Inverters convert direct current (DC) produced by solar panels to the alternating current (AC) supplied by the grid. A microinverter is just a small version of it. According to Enphase co-founder and Chief Products Officer Raghu Belur, microinverters function while attached to each solar panel instead of having many panels all fed into a larger inverter. This approach of having a distributed architecture has proven to work well in other applications, such as in computers and data centers, he said.


Looks like only Nunz managed to get the new tech in this thread! But does he have the rest to go semi off grid with no batteries?
 
dodger said:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/new-tech-can-make-your-house-a-solar-microgrid/

(There are two exceptions to this. The first is off-grid buildings that are set up to generate electricity from solar panels. The other exception is structures that have battery systems hooked up, though these can cost a lot—around $14,000 to install in some cases.)

To increase the number of exceptions, Enphase created the IQ8 Microinverter. Inverters convert direct current (DC) produced by solar panels to the alternating current (AC) supplied by the grid. A microinverter is just a small version of it. According to Enphase co-founder and Chief Products Officer Raghu Belur, microinverters function while attached to each solar panel instead of having many panels all fed into a larger inverter. This approach of having a distributed architecture has proven to work well in other applications, such as in computers and data centers, he said.


Looks like only Nunz managed to get the new tech in this thread! But does he have the rest to go semi off grid with no batteries?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, the project I pulled the trigger on uses the Enphase IQ8 micro-inverters as well.

GmSHmRM.png


Solar Panels (x20):
https://www.energysage.com/solar-panels/q-cells/2674/duo-blk-ml-g10-400/

Micro-inverters:
https://www.energysage.com/solar-inverters/enphase-energy/4647/IQ8PLUS-72-2-US/

Combiner:
https://enphase.com/sites/default/files/2021-10/IQ-Combiner-4-4C-DS-EN-US-10-21-2021.pdf

Racking:
https://unirac.com/product/sfm-infinity/
 
Trying to see if I can eek out another $1000-2000 with this proposal (military discount pls) to get it slightly cheaper. Don't think I'm even going to bother letting the other company try to beat the new offer I have. Still a bit pissy they boasted about LG panels and how great they are, but then failed to mention I won't be able to get a warranty replacement in 8 years since LG left the panel industry.
 
Called the first company, told them I had a better offer. They asked to see it, and a chance to beat it.

Sent them the numbers and equipment being used. They said they can drop their price if I go to the REC 365watt panels.. so we'll see.

I'm pitting these guys against each other like dogs :lol:
 
Gandalfthewhite said:
Nice basically the exact setup I got except I got 24 panels for 9.6kw DC.
Sunny days of AZ im generating ~50kwh AC
Click to expand...

How long have you had those installed and any issues? Things you wish you'd done differently? Still happy with what you got?
 
No issues. No complaints. I wish I would have been allowed to install 15kw worth of panels but my power company limits you to 65% of power needs whats funny is that in the summer it only covers half my power usage as im at 100kwh of usage a day. Though once I get a new HVAC system next year that will fix a decent chunk of it. Doesn't help that my server room uses about 20kwh a day not counting the mini split AC cooling that room.

They were installed in August turned on two weeks ago .
 
Wow, only allowed 65%? That's so weird. In Jersey, they pretty much want you at 100%, no more or less.

I'm going ~110% because I don't have 12mo of living here, so we can "predict" I'll use more than I really will. I'm going for a 8400kw system but in reality, only use around 6500kw annually, per the numbers I crunched. I want some expandability for the EV that the government is going to force us all into within the next 10 years.
 
Nunz said:
Wow, only allowed 65%? That's so weird. In Jersey, they pretty much want you at 100%, no more or less.

I'm going ~110% because I don't have 12mo of living here, so we can "predict" I'll use more than I really will. I'm going for a 8400kw system but in reality, only use around 6500kw annually, per the numbers I crunched. I want some expandability for the EV that the government is going to force us all into within the next 10 years.
Click to expand...

imo, it's pretty dumb and wasteful to put just a few solar panels on a roof, and it kindof looks bad too. Any time we have solar installers climbing up on a roof, we should be maxing out the capacity of that roof.

There's lots of companies that have (terrible) lease deals where they'll pay for your solar panel installation and then sell the power back to you. Then they can milk you for guaranteed cash every month for 20 years, and you never get to own the panels.

Here's my idea:
  • First figure out the total roof capacity.
  • Then calculate how many panels I need for my family. I'll pay the material costs for these.
  • Then find the difference. The solar lease company will pay for these.
  • The solar lease company pays for the full installation and handles any future maintenance.

I get to keep the power from my panels, and my break-even point is shorter, since I only paid for materials. The solar lease company gets to essentially lease roof space from me (for the cost of installation), harvest power from their panels and sell it onto the grid, with the full remaining capacity of the roof. Thus every house with solar panels becomes a power plant.
 
The lease thing you're talking about is called PPA; I agree, terrible deal.

The issue with everyone maxing out is that the current infrastructure can't handle that much power being sent back to the grid. Transformers have limitations, and we'd have to upgrade them everywhere. Before you say it.. I completely agree with you that we should be upgrading transformers *now* to handle the extra energy generation so that it can be utilized, but unfortunately many states are dragging their feet on that investment.

Currently the best way to handle your overproduction is to pay for a battery system to store it. Sending your excess generation to the grid kinda sucks - I pay $0.193/kw, but my excess generation is only ~$0.03/kw returned to me.

Once the infrastructure is improved, I can see more benefit to supplying the grid, but this isn't a ****ing charity. I'm not paying for solar to help the grid, I'm paying to reduce my long-term bills. I couldn't care less about helping out the grid that has been neglected for decades.
 
Last edited:
Nunz said:
The lease thing you're talking about is called PPA; I agree, terrible deal.

The issue with everyone maxing out is that the current infrastructure can't handle that much power being sent back to the grid. Transformers have limitations, and we'd have to upgrade them everywhere. Before you say it.. I completely agree with you that we should be upgrading transformers *now* to handle the extra energy generation so that it can be utilized, but unfortunately many states are dragging their feet on that investment.

Currently the best way to handle your overproduction is to pay for a battery system to store it. Sending your excess generation to the grid kinda sucks - I pay $0.193/kw, but my excess generation is only ~$0.03/kw returned to me.

Once the infrastructure is improved, I can see more benefit to supplying the grid, but this isn't a ****ing charity. I'm not paying for solar to help the grid, I'm paying to reduce my long-term bills. I couldn't care less about helping out the grid that has been neglected for decades.
Click to expand...

Good point on the infrastructure stuff.

And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that customers pay for solar panels to feed the power grid. If we're going to put additional panels on your roof to feed the grid, that needs to happen at zero cost to you.
 
SubCog said:
Good point on the infrastructure stuff.

And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that customers pay for solar panels to feed the power grid. If we're going to put additional panels on your roof to feed the grid, that needs to happen at zero cost to you.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean. Yeah, I can see that. As long as the potential damage to my roof is covered by the solar company (extra weight, etc). At the end of the day though, companies like PSE&G don't want this to happen, because it'll just rapidly increase the rate at which they become obsolete.

PSE&G is raising our rates by 25% in October per KW/h. We're going from $0.193 to ~$0.235 or something like that. It's the largest increase at once in history. This is a major driver for me to get the solar done now, before interest rates rise. Apparently in October, due to the fed interest rate going for another increase, the low rates on Solar will be rising. Banks are getting tired of dishing out 1.49% loans, I guess. :lol:
 
Nunz said:
I see what you mean. Yeah, I can see that. As long as the potential damage to my roof is covered by the solar company (extra weight, etc). At the end of the day though, companies like PSE&G don't want this to happen, because it'll just rapidly increase the rate at which they become obsolete.

PSE&G is raising our rates by 25% in October per KW/h. We're going from $0.193 to ~$0.235 or something like that. It's the largest increase at once in history. This is a major driver for me to get the solar done now, before interest rates rise. Apparently in October, due to the fed interest rate going for another increase, the low rates on Solar will be rising. Banks are getting tired of dishing out 1.49% loans, I guess. :lol:
Click to expand...

Maybe the utilities companies should be the ones installing solar on people's roofs? If they do what I'm describing, it could keep them relevant forever.
 
SubCog said:
imo, it's pretty dumb and wasteful to put just a few solar panels on a roof, and it kindof looks bad too. Any time we have solar installers climbing up on a roof, we should be maxing out the capacity of that roof.

There's lots of companies that have (terrible) lease deals where they'll pay for your solar panel installation and then sell the power back to you. Then they can milk you for guaranteed cash every month for 20 years, and you never get to own the panels.

Here's my idea:
  • First figure out the total roof capacity.
  • Then calculate how many panels I need for my family. I'll pay the material costs for these.
  • Then find the difference. The solar lease company will pay for these.
  • The solar lease company pays for the full installation and handles any future maintenance.

I get to keep the power from my panels, and my break-even point is shorter, since I only paid for materials. The solar lease company gets to essentially lease roof space from me (for the cost of installation), harvest power from their panels and sell it onto the grid, with the full remaining capacity of the roof. Thus every house with solar panels becomes a power plant.
Click to expand...

he could only get a few more panals on his roof anyway

building codes and fire department want walkways around them so they can cut thru in a fire to get water into the attic

here it is 18 inches from all roof edges and both sides of the peeks

then you have roof vents blocking and would have to skip panals there
or a area is shaded by a another higher part of the roof
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top