Gone Solar

Chi Meson

The panels are up. 7kW system will be 110% of our electrical needs. Grid intertie, no batteries, no pile of money up front: $109/month for the next 15 years.




Plus dig the new deck I built last summer.

--Chi "Happy Homeowner" Meson

edgepflow

Looks good. I have always wanted to put solar on our home.

You mentioned no batteries. What about night time?

Just curious, if you did not finance, what was the total cost?

Astronuc

I hope you monitor the electrical power output during the year to see how effective the system is, particularly during the winter, and particuarly with snow covering the panels, and only cloudy/rainy days.

So without batteries, one uses the grid at night? Does the system supply the grid when generation exceeds utilization?

Chi Meson

Batteries are not only unnecessary, they are "negatively beneficial" if talking 'bout environmental concerns OR financial concerns. The price of small inverters has come way the **** down, so it is much better to tie the solar output directly to the grid through the electric meter. When the panels crank out the kilowatts (mine is optimized for summer sun), the meter runs backward, and I get credit for the electricity I provide to the grid. At night, and in cloudy weather, the grid supplies electricity to me.

The thing is, rooftop panels will be at maximum production exactly when electric demand is highest: mid-day summer, when all the AC units in malls and businesses are cranking to achieve stupidly cold indoor climates. New incentives are working their way through state legislature where residents will be credited 3x the rate when they produce more than they use.

I chose the best incentive/financing plan available now: it's a "lease" of the system, where I pay about 90% of my usual monthly electric bill over the next 15 years. If I produce more than I use, a credit is set aside and used to pay for any repairs required along the way.

Next year, Connecticut will require that new systems get credited 55 cents per kWh when they produce, as opposed to 18 / kWh when they use. This will be an incentive to put the largest # of panels possible for an array. I can't get this deal until the lease runs out.

Chi Meson

There's an App for that! I'll be able to check production from anywhere. If you see the space above the panels over the garage, I'm putting in 4 skylights. One of these will be used as an access portal if I need to scrape some snow off.

They are 0% effective unless under direct sunlight, so even a light dusting of snow makes them useless

But as I mentioned, my grid is optimized for summer. Due to the pitch of the roof, I'll only get just under 3000 kW from November through February in the best conditions. From March through October, it should be 7000kW-ish, peaking over 9000kW in June/July.

turbo

Sweet setup, Chi! I'd love to do something like that, though are snow-loads are incredible in recent years, and I would fear for the physical viability of the panels.

zoobyshoe

Damn, what a nice, big house! I love the deck and congratulations on the solar!

Saladsamurai

Yeah. That's a sweet house Chi! Where do you live out of curiosity? New England?

EDIT: Just read your profile. I am waving from the next state over!

Astronuc

Speaking of the nice deck, is that TREX?

I need to replace my front porch because the cheap wood that the contractor used has weathered and the handrails have warped. I replaced the wood on the small backdoor deck with TREX, and it turned our really nice.

dlgoff

I can just imagine the damage caused by roof-rakes and snow-blowers.

Ivan Seeking

Most excellent, Chi. The fixed monthly cost makes this completely mangeable.

It's looking like solar may be viable here in Oregon pretty soon. But it has stiff competition with the low-cost hydro power we have locally. It may be another generation or two [of the technology] before it's worth doing here.

Andre

Please don't shoot the messenger.

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Effect-of-Temp...lar-Panels.htm

Assuming the reflectivity of 5% of black panels and at say 30 degrees relative lattitude they absorb 0.95 * sine(45) * 1360 W/m2 = 911 W/m2 at noon. Stefan Boltzman transfers this to a temp of 356K or 83 degrees C, so the effectivity may drop 30% or something, due to the heat.

I guess it would be a double whammy if the panels were liquid cooled, the heat of the water being stored under ground.

Ivan Seeking

You are assuming that 100% of the energy goes to heat.

Andre

No the sad lessons learned by my brother in law.

Ivan Seeking

No, you took the total incident energy and assumed that it all heats the panel. That is incorrect. The panel is producing power.

Also, where did you get 1360 Watts. That seems too high even for the total incident power per sq meter.

Andre

No I did not

I merely looked at the graph in the link



Note that 83 degrees C is off the scale

Also the solar constant is 1370 W/m2, so I was 10 W/m2 too low for the safe side.

But we have indeed to substract the energy which is converted to electricity. 6-12% and for 12% the numbers would be 802 W/m2 remaining absorbed energy gives 345 K or 72C

256bits

Where did you get the kW figures from as they seem a little high for the area of solar panel, guessing about 100 square meters. Would not 9000 sq meter be needed for 9000 kW?