trader_4
Fri, 12
May 2017 15:52:06 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 7:22:05 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
mike news May 2017 05:03:33 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Except that you contradict that in the next paragraph.
He most definitely needs the grid to make up the shortfall.

He has no battery bank, so, during the nighttime, and on very
cloudy days, he'd require the grid to make up the difference. If
he elects to install a large enough battery bank, he wouldn't
require the grid during the evenings or when it's cloudy outside.

What's the size and cost of that battery bank?
Add that to the total cost and make it the real cost
too, not the cost after massive govt tax credits.

https://beyondoilsolar.com/product/n...strial-series/

He has options, that's just one place for him to get them, if he
wanted. So I can't set a price in stone for you. But, you can do the
math if you'd like.

He's not taking advantage of tax credits. It's paperwork he wasn't
interested in doing.

Clearly the battery model isn't here, solar is being
installed here and not a one that I've heard of uses
batteries. They are all grid tied, grid dependent.

You seem to be a bit behind the times, then. There's all kinds of
inverters available now, too. Few of them are grid dependent
anymore. And those should be well on their way out, as in, becoming
extinct in favor of the ones which support battery banks, and, at
your option (if you're willing to spend the money), completely grid
independent power source.

http://cdn.solar.schneider-electric....DS20161116.pdf


True. But his neighbor, who doesn't have solar, is
getting screwed because the utility, in most cases,
is being forced to buy his solar energy at inflated
prices, when they could be buying cheaper, grid
electric from conventional sources. And we're all
helping pay for his electric because of big tax
subsidies.

Again, you seem to be out of touch...
https://www.greenmountainenergy.com/...-your-utility/


Utilities being mandated to buy his solar power at
inflated costs.

That's not true, here...
https://solarpowerrocks.com/tennessee/

He's taking a loss, and, he'll continue to eat it for years to come
because he didn't take advantage of any tax credits, loans, etc. He
paid cash for the entire system. he wanted it, he didn't care if it
made him money. To put it simply, the guy has more cash than he has
economic sense. If he wants something, he doesn't care what it
costs, he buys it. He can afford to.

And the state benefits too, because his property taxes went up as a
result of the 'improvement' to his brand new home. That he also paid
for, outright. No bank loan. No mortgage.

His house, with minimal needs from the grid, not fairly
paying for all the infrastructure necessary to deliver
him that power.

He's paying out the ass for it. The ONLY thing he's getting back is
a tiny check each month instead of a bill, And, I do mean a tiny
check. some of them aren't even worth taking the time for him to
deposit.

Massive tax breaks that increase the tax burden for all
tax payers, which isn't in your utility bill, but we
still pay it.

He's NOT taking advantage of ANY. So, no, you're not paying for it.
None of you are.

The difference is that utilities are being forced to
buy solar at inflated rates. May not be true
everywhere, but it's the case in many places,
including here in NJ.

It's NOT true here.

Sell it to another utility company in need of it? They already do
that.


They can't sell it when all the utilites have the same
problem. Right now, there is excess capacity at night.
Who can you sell that too?

How is it my problem or fault that they have no means of storing
excess power for a rainy day?

The problem is the rest of us are paying for it,
that it's totally economically unviable on it's own.

The rest of you are not paying a damn dime for his setup. He didn't
opt for any credits, loans, subsidies, nothing.

IDK how you do that. I;d like to see an example of a
typical ome solar system that is not required to be
connected to the grid.

http://solar.schneider-electric.com/...brid-inverter/
http://cdn.solar.schneider-electric....DS20161116.pdf

Everyone I've seen, if the grid
goes down, you have no power, it disconnects and shuts
down. Which is one of the ironic things, all the
people here with solar, if there is a power outage,
they will be without power just like the rest of us.

You've seen older and otherwise limited solar systems, then.

Show us the spec sheet for the eqpt he's using that
doesn't require the grid for him to have power.

http://cdn.solar.schneider-electric....DS20161116.pdf
http://solar.schneider-electric.com/...brid-inverter/

You like?

Sorry, but, you're wrong. He paid for the gear and installation,
out of his own pocket.

No he didn't, unless he's a complete fool or pays

Yes, he did. I'd opt for the fool, given the choices you presented.
But, I can't really say he's a fool because he's got a ****load
of money from his career in the medical field...I suppose one can be
highly intelligent AND a fool at the same time, though.

solar installer touts the big tax credits that
make it work.

He didn't use a solar installer. He asked his contractor about it,
and they went over some options with him, he chose one, the
contractor had us (the electricians) install it.

And I'll bet the utility is paying
him more for his solar than they can generate or
but electricity for. Many states also have other
rebate programs that kick in money too.

That would be a bad bet to place...We're in TN...

--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

Fri, 12
May 2017 14:05:39 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:


He's not in a high population density area, though. And, the grid
isn't the most stable where he resides. So, Solar made sense for
him.


Ha, thats the best part.

The best part?

Does he know that most grid tie inverters will NOT function
without the grid.

You seem to be a bit behind the times...What do you think the
battery banks are for?

http://solar.schneider-electric.com/...brid-inverter/

Here's the one he's usings spec sheet:

http://cdn.solar.schneider-electric....DS20161116.pdf

It's the one to the right.

Here's another one able to provide limited power to an outlet if the
grid does go down:

https://beyondoilsolar.com/product/s...s-22-inverter/

What that means in practical terms, he cannot use the electricity
from solar during a power failure.

Yes, he can. His inverter doesn't need the grid to be online in
order to function, it needs sunlight. And if none is available, a
battery bank. It's not a 1st generation setup I'm discussing here.

For the times when the sunlight isn't available AND the grid is
down, it will happily run on battery bank(s) and continue to provide
his entire home with power. Should he ever opt for purchase and
install of said banks. And, it's a scalable system. If he exceeds
the capacity of the inverter he already has, he can add another one!
And another, etc. Upto 102KW's worth, infact.


What do you think the battery banks are for? ****s and giggles?
Something to look at and admire?

I think that is a travesty and the rules re inverter designs
should be changed.

I think your knowledge of this subject is several years out of date...

Right now this behavior is REQUIRED by the rules to prevent the
possibility of backfeeding power to a dead power line.

You've never heard of an interlock switch? House Generators use them for
the same reason...He also has a manual switch he can use that will
seperate his house from the grid, even if it is hot. He can run
entirely on solar power, if he so chooses.

Have you actually installed any of these systems, generator, or
solar. Are you actually an electrician, or just going by what
someone has told you?

And where is here to you? Which rules are you writing about?

--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

On 5/12/2017 11:23 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 05/11/2017 07:32 PM, mike wrote:

Just down the street, there's a solar powered traffic radar speed sign.
The cost of the solar panel is high, but it's way cheaper than
digging up the street to run a line to the power grid across the street.
It's cheaper than adding an agenda item to the city engineer's
todo list. It's a no-brainer.

Around here, those signs are portable, and moved to different places. A
permanent solution like digging up the street would not be appropriate.

The closest one to me is in a school zone. Permanently affixed to
a pole, across the street from the power distribution system.

I don't have any idea how cities deal with paying for power for
street lights and traffic signals. I see very few with meters on 'em.

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 7:42:14 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:

So show us the spec sheet for this inverter that will run without
being connected to the grid or a battery bank. Like I say, I haven't
seen one yet that will run without being grid tied or having a battery bank.




He's using a hybrid inverter...So it doesn't need the grid to run.
It's able to provide power without the grid, via the panels on his
house, AND a battery bank if he opts to get one.

http://solar.schneider-electric.com/...brid-inverter/

If you pull up the spec sheet, it's the one to the right:

http://cdn.solar.schneider-electric....DS20161116.pdf


Pulled it up and here is what they say:

Click on Residential Grid-Tied Solar with Backup power:

Solutions

During grid outages PV Inverter production cannot occur, so a home with a PV inverter system installed will not have power during an outage. However for homes that have a PV Inverter system installed and are already selling power to the grid, it is still possible to retrofit backup power using Conext XW+ or SW inverter chargers. In a FIT program either Conext XW+ or SW is added behind PV inverter to provide backup, no change to PV inverter FIT wiring is required. However backup power is limited to the capacity of the battery bank and the solar system cannot be used to charge the batteries while the grid is down. I


Click on Residential Backup Power:


Solutions

Conext XW+ or Conext SW integrates into the residential electrical system and seamlessly converts power from battery reserves to power critical loads such as pumps, security systems, refrigerators and electronics, when utility grid power is unavailable.

Click on Residential Self-Consumption:


Solutions

Enabled by PriorityPower both Conext XW+ and Conext SW will prioritize the self-consumption of stored battery and PV generated power over grid power, helping homeowners avoid high utility charges. Both XW+ and SW also provide for backup in areas prone to grid outages. Conext XW+ takes it one step further by enabling excess PV power to be sold using GridSell Coupling the PV system to the battery bank with Conext MPPT Solar Charge Controllers is the most efficient and economical method for self-consumption



Every scenario that they show using their product, if power is available
without the grid being powered up, it includes BATTERIES.

Further, I pulled up the install instructions. Page 2-13:

https://www.wholesalesolar.com/cms/s...3551255610.pdf


"The Conext XW+ Inverter/Charger operates with batteries as its source of DC
power. If DC power sources are connected directly to the inverter, the DC rating of the inverter can be exceeded and the inverter can be damaged.

Battery Bank Requirements
The DC voltage of the Conext XW+ Inverter/Charger must match the nominal
voltage of the system and battery-connected devices. The inverter is a 48 V
inverter; therefore, the battery bank and battery-connected devices in the system
must be configured for 48 volts.
Battery Cable Requirements
Battery cable
length
Cable runs should be kept as short as practical. Length should not exceed 10
feet (3 m). Run the positive and negative cables alongside each other. Avoid
cable loops.
In order to keep the battery cable length short, install the Conext XW+ Inverter/
Charger as close as possible to the battery room or battery enclosure.
Note: The minimum recommended battery bank is 440 Ah per inverter/charger.
The Conext XW+ Inverter/Charger is designed to operate with batteries and
should not be operated without them. Also, do not allow the battery bank to
become completely discharged. If the voltage of the battery bank falls below
40 volts, the Conext XW+ Inverter/Charger will not operate.


PAges 3-14 thru 3-16 show how it's used, all examples show it connected
to a battery bank.


They are cluster configurable too, so you can extend the capacity by
adding additional ones. It's a sweet one, it really is. Easy to work
with, easy to wire, easy to configure. Nice unit, and powerful.

Here's another one (so I'm not being totally biased here) that can
provide power, without the grid:

https://beyondoilsolar.com/product/s...s-22-inverter/

Also, an optional Secure Power Supply (SPS) feature enables these
Sunny Boy inverters to supply up to 12 A at 120VAC to a single
outlet for recharging portable devices or a small UPS directly from
the PV array in the event of a grid outage.

Note what it says, is that it can supply a "single isolated outlet".
It does not say that it can be configured to power the whole house.

Which of course is obviously because it cannot, because of the same
issues that prevent all the other grid tied systems from providing
power during outages. Look, it's really, really simple. If it were
possible for the array to be used to provide power to the whole house
during outages, every one of these solar companies that are selling
their equipment, installing it, would be hawking this a a MAJOR benefit
and selling point. Either they are incredibly stupid or it's not
simple, cost effective to make this possible without a battery bank
or other substantial increase in cost.

Show us some examples of actual installations that do what you claim.
There should be plenty of application examples, if it exists and is
cost effective for the average homeowner. I'm betting part of the
reason it isn't done is the sun doesn't maintain full 100% power to
the panel all the time. A cloud passes by, if you have no battery bank,
then what? How many people would put up with being cut-off or having
the power drop to 60V when a cloud comes by?



You guys both seem to be a bit more than behind the times on this...


Everyone is free to judge who's out of touch with the times.
Show us examples of companies installing residential solar power
that feature it's ability to work during pour outages without a
battery bank. I would hope that you'd agree that if this is available,
it would be a MAJOR selling point. If company A had it, on a system
that was close in price to company B, that didn't which one would
everyone want?

I also looked for "hybrid solar inverter" and everything I found was
along these lines:

"How are hybrid inverters used in solar projects?

http://www.solarpowerworldonline.com...olar-projects/

January 14, 2015 Kathie Zipp :
Hybrid inverters are commonly used in the developing world, but they are starting to make their way into daily use in certain areas of the U.S due to their ability to stabilize energy availability.
A solar inverters main job is to convert DC power generated from the array into usable AC power. Hybrid inverters go a step further and work with batteries to store excess power as well. This type of system solves issues renewable energy variability and unreliable grid structures.

Key word: Batteries

And again, if these could provide power for the masses with solar array
without batteries when the grid goes down, you'd sure think they would
be bragging about it in the above.


I don't think that's the real problem. The same
potential for backfeeding exists with any alternate
power system, eg generators and it's routinely
handled with an interlock, etc.

It's not a problem. It has an interlock which prevents it from
backfeeding onto a dead grid, just like a house generator does, by
code. As well as having a secondary interlock that he can flip to
isolate his house from the grid, whether it's hot or not.


Apparently the industry disagrees that backfeeding is a problem.
I don't think it's the only problem, ie clouds would seem to be
a bigger and insurmountable problem to me, without a battery bank
of course.

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 7:42:14 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:

Fri, 12
May 2017 14:05:39 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:


He's not in a high population density area, though. And, the grid
isn't the most stable where he resides. So, Solar made sense for
him.


Ha, thats the best part.

The best part?

Does he know that most grid tie inverters will NOT function
without the grid.

You seem to be a bit behind the times...What do you think the
battery banks are for?


He said "most" not all. What percent of residential solar installs
have battery banks? My guess is less than 1%, whatever the number
it's insignificant. Also, you claim was that a battery bank was not
required, that you can power the house from the array, without batteries,
while the grid is down.




http://solar.schneider-electric.com/...brid-inverter/

Here's the one he's usings spec sheet:

http://cdn.solar.schneider-electric....DS20161116.pdf

It's the one to the right.

And if you look at the installation instructions, it clearly says that
it must be used with a BATTERY BANK. I didn't see anyone in this thread
arguing that you can't power a house without the grid if you have a
battery bank.




Here's another one able to provide limited power to an outlet if the
grid does go down:


Note the distinction between "limited power to an isolated outlet" and
powering the whole house.


https://beyondoilsolar.com/product/s...s-22-inverter/

What that means in practical terms, he cannot use the electricity
from solar during a power failure.

Yes, he can. His inverter doesn't need the grid to be online in
order to function, it needs sunlight. And if none is available, a
battery bank.

But you specifically claimed no battery bank was required.



It's not a 1st generation setup I'm discussing here.

For the times when the sunlight isn't available AND the grid is
down, it will happily run on battery bank(s) and continue to provide
his entire home with power. Should he ever opt for purchase and
install of said banks. And, it's a scalable system. If he exceeds
the capacity of the inverter he already has, he can add another one!
And another, etc. Upto 102KW's worth, infact.

And if the grid is down with the sun shining and there is no battery
bank, there is no power to the house. Which is what we suspected and
is the case.




What do you think the battery banks are for? ****s and giggles?
Something to look at and admire?


You claimed no battery bank was required, that you could power the
house during daylight, with the grid down.


I think that is a travesty and the rules re inverter designs
should be changed.

I think your knowledge of this subject is several years out of date...


ROFL


Right now this behavior is REQUIRED by the rules to prevent the
possibility of backfeeding power to a dead power line.

You've never heard of an interlock switch? House Generators use them for
the same reason...He also has a manual switch he can use that will
seperate his house from the grid, even if it is hot. He can run
entirely on solar power, if he so chooses.


I guess these solar experts haven't either?

https://www.solarenergyworld.com/faq...making-energy/

"Many people considering going solar ask if a solar system works during a power outage. If you have a solar battery system as well as a solar PV system, your power will continue to work. However, since your system is grid-tied, for safety reasons, if there is a power outage your solar system will automatically shut off when the power goes out. Solar batteries can add as much as 30% to the cost of a solar system presently, so most homeowners do not go with this option."

And I guess this company that installs systema on Long Island is nuts too?

http://gogreenleafsolar.com/when-the...solar-stay-on/


Why your solar panels wont work during a power outage

Many homeowners have a difficult time understanding why their solar system wont function during a power outage, so in order to understand this issue better it is worth examining what is called €œanti-islanding..€� Anti-islanding is a feature performed by solar inverters that allow them to sense when there is a power outage and shut themselves down in order to protect both your solar equipment and utility workers attempting to restore power. While anti-islanding is a valuable feature for protecting your solar equipment as well as utility workers it also required by the National Electrical Code, but this means that your solar system will be shut down during a power outage even though your panels are making energy. Thankfully, recent technological advances in solar have made it possible to still use some of the power generated by your solar system to power important devices in your home even during a blackout.


Installing a secure power supply

While typical solar systems dont allow you to power your home during a blackout, new technology from the inverter company SMA now offers the capability to support 3000 watts of €œsecure power supply.€� A secure power supply is essentially an outlet connected directly to your inverter that allows you to use a 3000 watts of the power produced by your solar system during the daylight hours for backup power. While a secure power supply does not produce enough power to keep your entire house running during a blackout, it does allow you to plug in your most important devices such as cell phone, computers, refrigerator and even a microwave.

Currently SMA inverters are one of the only inverters on the market with the capability to be connected to a secure power supply. In order to connect a secure power supply outlet to your inverter the help of an experienced solar installer is necessary.



And note that it supplies an outlet with 3000 watts, not the house.



Have you actually installed any of these systems, generator, or
solar. Are you actually an electrician, or just going by what
someone has told you?

The above company has, obviously.



And where is here to you? Which rules are you writing about?


The NEC is what applies.

Feel free to admit at any time that you're wrong.

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 7:42:12 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Fri, 12
May 2017 15:52:06 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 7:22:05 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
mike news May 2017 05:03:33 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Except that you contradict that in the next paragraph.
He most definitely needs the grid to make up the shortfall.

He has no battery bank, so, during the nighttime, and on very
cloudy days, he'd require the grid to make up the difference. If
he elects to install a large enough battery bank, he wouldn't
require the grid during the evenings or when it's cloudy outside.

What's the size and cost of that battery bank?
Add that to the total cost and make it the real cost
too, not the cost after massive govt tax credits.

https://beyondoilsolar.com/product/n...strial-series/

He has options, that's just one place for him to get them, if he
wanted. So I can't set a price in stone for you. But, you can do the
math if you'd like.


Again, no one said you can't buy a battery bank, only that it adds
significantly to the cost and has other disadvantages.




He's not taking advantage of tax credits. It's paperwork he wasn't
interested in doing.


Then he's the exceptional case and absent some compelling need for
solar, or the inability to use a calculator, nuts.


Clearly the battery model isn't here, solar is being
installed here and not a one that I've heard of uses
batteries. They are all grid tied, grid dependent.

You seem to be a bit behind the times, then.

What percent of the residential installs do you think have battery banks?
Show us some write ups about all the ones being installed for the masses
that have battery banks. Are a small, insignificant percentage doing it,
typically for special reasons, sure. The vast majority of installs going
in today, no.


There's all kinds of
inverters available now, too. Few of them are grid dependent
anymore.

But so far, from everything I've seen, from everything you've submitted
as evidence, I have yet to see one that will power the house with the
grid down, unless it has a battery bank. Which of course is what Mike
and I said. You did provide a link to one small unit, which will provide
limited power to one isolated outlet, but not the house.



And those should be well on their way out, as in, becoming
extinct in favor of the ones which support battery banks, and, at
your option (if you're willing to spend the money), completely grid
independent power source.


Except of course that it's unlikely that many people are going to want a
battery bank, the cost and other issues that come with it. Battery
options have been available, but people are already shelling out big
bucks for the basic solar capability.


http://cdn.solar.schneider-electric....DS20161116.pdf


True. But his neighbor, who doesn't have solar, is
getting screwed because the utility, in most cases,
is being forced to buy his solar energy at inflated
prices, when they could be buying cheaper, grid
electric from conventional sources. And we're all
helping pay for his electric because of big tax
subsidies.

Again, you seem to be out of touch...
https://www.greenmountainenergy.com/...-your-utility/


Funny how you post something that is exactly in line with what we've
been telling you, then claim that somehow it's something else.
That link just confirms what Mike and I have been telling you.
It doesn't say what price electric companies are paying for the solar,
just that they are buying it. It doesn't say that they are buying it
because it's cost effective, that they want to buy it. And in most
cases, they are buying it because they are Forced by govt to buy it
and they are paying inflated rates for it.




Utilities being mandated to buy his solar power at
inflated costs.

That's not true, here...
https://solarpowerrocks.com/tennessee/


Thanks again for proving out points. From your own link above:

A Renewables Portfolio Standard (€œRPS€�) is a statute or other piece of regulation that mandates that a portion of at states electricity is produced from renewable resources (like solar power) by a certain date. If you have been following renewable energy policy at all, you already know that a whole lot of states have passed strong a strong RPS. Many of the RPSs mandate goals as high as 30%, even 40% renewable production in the next 10-15 years.

So whats going on in Tennessee? Well, not much. Nothing in fact. Tennessee has absolutely no renewables portfolio, no targets €“ nothing. Tennessee needs to get on track; Colorado, California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, and many other states that have already passed strong RPSs to ensure a bright future for solar power and other renewable energy. Trust us, a strong RPS is integral to having that bright future here. No one wants to give you free money €“ least of all the electric companies. Without a strong RPS pushing them, politicians and CEOs have no incentive to give you incentives. Incentives for more solar power, that is!"


So, right there, they admit that exactly what we said is true. To make
solar viable, it needs the govt forcing utilities to buy the power.
Of course we all know that the reason for that is that it's EXPENSIVE
compared to the other electric sources the utility could buy from.
So, while TN isn't doing it, clearly these solar promoters say they
need to, to make solar happen. And on top of that, you also have
federal subsidies, in the form of tax credits, and that is available in TN.



He's taking a loss, and, he'll continue to eat it for years to come
because he didn't take advantage of any tax credits, loans, etc. He
paid cash for the entire system. he wanted it, he didn't care if it
made him money. To put it simply, the guy has more cash than he has
economic sense.

Bingo. Absent those subsidies, he'll never break even.


If he wants something, he doesn't care what it
costs, he buys it. He can afford to.


Which of course has nothing to do with the big picture, the true cost
and viability of solar.



And the state benefits too, because his property taxes went up as a
result of the 'improvement' to his brand new home. That he also paid
for, outright. No bank loan. No mortgage.

His house, with minimal needs from the grid, not fairly
paying for all the infrastructure necessary to deliver
him that power.

He's paying out the ass for it.

How is he paying for the cost of the grid infrastructure if he's
not using and paying for any electricity? His neighbor, with a
$150 a month electric bill, he's paying for it.






The ONLY thing he's getting back is
a tiny check each month instead of a bill, And, I do mean a tiny
check. some of them aren't even worth taking the time for him to
deposit.

Massive tax breaks that increase the tax burden for all
tax payers, which isn't in your utility bill, but we
still pay it.

He's NOT taking advantage of ANY. So, no, you're not paying for it.
None of you are.


I'd say his neighbors are paying for the cost of the grid infrastructure
that he makes use of. But granted, that's a small subsidy. But what
one unusual case is doing is irrelevant to the big picture. And in
the big picture, do you deny that solar is receiving big subsidies?
EG, federal tax credits, state credits in some cases, utilities being
forced to buy solar electric at inflated rates?



The difference is that utilities are being forced to
buy solar at inflated rates. May not be true
everywhere, but it's the case in many places,
including here in NJ.

It's NOT true here.


That doesn't change the fact that it is in most places. Or the fact
that your own link says that TN needs to start doing the same.
If solar is competitive without state assistance, why does your own
link point to the other states and say that TN needs to do it too?



Sell it to another utility company in need of it? They already do
that.


They can't sell it when all the utilites have the same
problem. Right now, there is excess capacity at night.
Who can you sell that too?

How is it my problem or fault that they have no means of storing
excess power for a rainy day?


No one said it was your fault. Good grief.


The problem is the rest of us are paying for it,
that it's totally economically unviable on it's own.

The rest of you are not paying a damn dime for his setup. He didn't
opt for any credits, loans, subsidies, nothing.


He's the exceptional case. You happened to come across one guy who
apparently has no taxable income, so he can't take advantage of the
federal credits. And you happen to live in state that isn't subsidizing
solar. And a guy who doesn't care that he's losing money on the whole
thing. WTF does that have to do with the situation that the vast
majority of solar people are in?





IDK how you do that. I;d like to see an example of a
typical ome solar system that is not required to be
connected to the grid.

http://solar.schneider-electric.com/...brid-inverter/
http://cdn.solar.schneider-electric....DS20161116.pdf

Everyone I've seen, if the grid
goes down, you have no power, it disconnects and shuts
down. Which is one of the ironic things, all the
people here with solar, if there is a power outage,
they will be without power just like the rest of us.

You've seen older and otherwise limited solar systems, then.


Wrong. What everyone said here from the beginning was that without
a battery bank, if you lose the grid power, then the solar system
for the house goes down and the house isn't powered even if the
sun is shining. The install instructions for the above inverter
clearly say that it must be installed with a BATTERY BANK.




Show us the spec sheet for the eqpt he's using that
doesn't require the grid for him to have power.

http://cdn.solar.schneider-electric....DS20161116.pdf
http://solar.schneider-electric.com/...brid-inverter/

You like?

Taken out of context. YOU claimed that he has power without the grid,
without a battery bank, with the sun shining. Sure, if he has batteries
then he will have power. I and Mike acknowledged that from the beginning.

On 5/13/2017 8:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:


I'd say his neighbors are paying for the cost of the grid infrastructure
that he makes use of. But granted, that's a small subsidy.

That's only because the penetration of rooftop solar is so small.
Consider the limiting case where YOU are the only one not using
rooftop solar. You'd be paying the entire cost of the grid which
is still capable of providing peak needs at night
and on cloudy days for all
those other people selling their peak power back to the utility.

My electrical bill was $30 for electricity and another $26 for
fixed costs. Would be interesting to know how that ratio would
change if everybody but me had rooftop solar without storage.

Rooftop solar without local storage is UNSUSTAINABLE.
Local storage is impractical with current technology
for anybody with grid access.

How much carbon is released while manufacturing/installing/maintaining
a rooftop solar system? What does all that additional installation
do to your property taxes, or roof maintenance costs, or home insurance
costs?
People just ignore the fact that local storage has its own
demons when it comes to production and recycling.

You can make a case for solar and wind farms, but as a
total supply of energy, it's impractical without a breakthrough
in storage.
Even with subsidies, the masses cannot afford rooftop solar.
Rooftop solar will never be a huge percentage of supply in
places where a grid exists.

Nuclear is the only technology on the horizon capable of
meeting our energy needs with low carbon footprint.
We spend money on giving away rooftop solar systems.
Perhaps that would be better spent on making nuclear safer.
Invest in a path that could actually provide a solution.

Tree huggers need to "take a timeout." Yes, nuclear
is gonna kill some people. But, so do automobiles.
It's the cost of progress.
In perspective, maybe we should outlaw automobiles.


But what
one unusual case is doing is irrelevant to the big picture. And in
the big picture, do you deny that solar is receiving big subsidies?
EG, federal tax credits, state credits in some cases, utilities being
forced to buy solar electric at inflated rates?



The difference is that utilities are being forced to
buy solar at inflated rates. May not be true
everywhere, but it's the case in many places,
including here in NJ.

On 5/13/2017 4:16 PM, mike wrote:



Nuclear is the only technology on the horizon capable of
meeting our energy needs with low carbon footprint.
We spend money on giving away rooftop solar systems.
Perhaps that would be better spent on making nuclear safer.
Invest in a path that could actually provide a solution.

Stop it now! Sensible solutions are not accepted. Only problem with
nukes is the regulations are so tough it is very difficult to get
approvals.

Any type of power plant is having tough times getting approvals yet we
keep buying electric powered technology and now we want electric cars.

Thank Eisenhower for approving the interstate highway system in 1956.
It could not b built today for all the protesters.

"mike" wrote in message news
On 5/13/2017 8:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:


I'd say his neighbors are paying for the cost of the grid infrastructure
that he makes use of. But granted, that's a small subsidy.

That's only because the penetration of rooftop solar is so small.
Consider the limiting case where YOU are the only one not using
rooftop solar. You'd be paying the entire cost of the grid which
is still capable of providing peak needs at night
and on cloudy days for all
those other people selling their peak power back to the utility.

My electrical bill was $30 for electricity and another $26 for
fixed costs. Would be interesting to know how that ratio would
change if everybody but me had rooftop solar without storage.

I do not read all stories about Solar. However it is necessary to know
Did you purchase the whole solar system or do you leasing it.
How many kilowatt is your system.
How much you are paying per kilowatt Solar Co.
How much you are paying Electrical Co. for paper work monthly?


Rooftop solar without local storage is UNSUSTAINABLE.
Local storage is impractical with current technology
for anybody with grid access.

How much carbon is released while manufacturing/installing/maintaining
a rooftop solar system? What does all that additional installation
do to your property taxes, or roof maintenance costs, or home insurance
costs?
People just ignore the fact that local storage has its own
demons when it comes to production and recycling.

You can make a case for solar and wind farms, but as a
total supply of energy, it's impractical without a breakthrough
in storage.
Even with subsidies, the masses cannot afford rooftop solar.
Rooftop solar will never be a huge percentage of supply in
places where a grid exists.

Nuclear is the only technology on the horizon capable of
meeting our energy needs with low carbon footprint.
We spend money on giving away rooftop solar systems.
Perhaps that would be better spent on making nuclear safer.
Invest in a path that could actually provide a solution.

Tree huggers need to "take a timeout." Yes, nuclear
is gonna kill some people. But, so do automobiles.
It's the cost of progress.
In perspective, maybe we should outlaw automobiles.


But what
one unusual case is doing is irrelevant to the big picture. And in
the big picture, do you deny that solar is receiving big subsidies?
EG, federal tax credits, state credits in some cases, utilities being
forced to buy solar electric at inflated rates?



The difference is that utilities are being forced to
buy solar at inflated rates. May not be true
everywhere, but it's the case in many places,
including here in NJ.

trader_4
Sat, 13
May 2017 14:49:01 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:


During grid outages PV Inverter production cannot occur, so a home
with a PV inverter system installed will not have power during an
outage. However for homes that have a PV Inverter system installed
and are already selling power to the grid, it is still possible to
retrofit backup power using Conext XW+ or SW inverter chargers. In
a FIT program either Conext XW+ or SW is added behind PV inverter
to provide backup, no change to PV inverter FIT wiring is
required. However backup power is limited to the capacity of the
battery bank and the solar system cannot be used to charge the
batteries while the grid is down. I

I see you're intentionally confusing the retrofit options in place
of the one you specifically asked me about.

"The Conext XW+ Inverter/Charger operates with batteries as its
source of DC power. If DC power sources are connected directly to
the inverter, the DC rating of the inverter can be exceeded and
the inverter can be damaged.

That's because the battery bank isn't pushing 1000+ DC volts to it,
where as the PV array will, unless it's limited, via the controller option.

Battery Bank Requirements
The DC voltage of the Conext XW+ Inverter/Charger must match the
nominal voltage of the system and battery-connected devices. The
inverter is a 48 V inverter; therefore, the battery bank and
battery-connected devices in the system must be configured for 48
volts.

Yes. You cannot just tie the PV array into the battery bank circuit,
the incoming voltage is MUCH MUCH to high. It must be reduced,
before entering the Inverter if it's being done this way. Which is
what the SMA unit is doing, essentially. Although, on a smaller scale.

Note what it says, is that it can supply a "single isolated
outlet". It does not say that it can be configured to power the
whole house.

I didn't say it could. I specifically said, "that can provide power
without the grid". I even quoted exactly what was written about it.
You'll notice, it's supplying power from the PV Array. Not the
battery bank.

Show us some examples of actual installations that do what you
claim.

http://solar.schneider-electric.com/...ff-grid-solar/

For off-grid residences, the Conext XW+ or Conext SW becomes the
primary power source and forms the grid, converting solar power and
battery reserves to AC power for loads. Powerful load-starting
capabilities of the Conext XW+ and Conext SW, start and run typical
loads, such as pumps with ease, enabling key water and sewage
systems. The Conext XW+ or SW is also easily combined with a diesel
generator to shorten generator run-time, reduce diesel fuel costs
and extend autonomy of the solar installation. Using the Conext MPPT
Solar Charge Controllers, the PV system is DC coupled to the battery
bank, providing an efficient and economical method of storing PV
power for use overnight. AC Coupling the PV system with the inverter
charger has advantages when the solar PV array must be sited far
away from the battery bank. Conext solutions include


Everyone is free to judge who's out of touch with the times.

Yep.

Show us examples of companies installing residential solar power
that feature it's ability to work during pour outages without a
battery bank.

See above. With the controller (an additional expense) you can
provide power to the inverter via the PV array without using
batteries. It *can* couple a battery bank to it. What the controller
is actually doing is limiting the incoming voltage coming off the PV
array so it doesn't blow the inverter to pieces.

I'm starting to see why many? others have declared you a troll and
binned you. I'm not quite ready to do that, myself.

Key word: Batteries

Not quite. Which doesn't matter anymore, I was informed yesterday
that he finally purchased and has since installed a battery bank. I
do not have the specifications of the bank, But, I have asked and
should be hearing back shortly concerning it. I didn't attend the
install for that job, I was assigned someplace else. Apologies for
misleading you about not having battery bank; as, I didn't think he
had one, yet.

It's not a problem. It has an interlock which prevents it from
backfeeding onto a dead grid, just like a house generator does,
by code. As well as having a secondary interlock that he can flip
to isolate his house from the grid, whether it's hot or not.


Apparently the industry disagrees that backfeeding is a problem.

Did you ignore the lines following "It's not a problem" on purpose,
or? Just how do you suppose it's able to power his house on the
battery bank, without backfeeding the grid? Some kind of magic?

I don't think it's the only problem, ie clouds would seem to be
a bigger and insurmountable problem to me, without a battery bank
of course.

Do you understand how many volts the PV array can still provide on a
cloudy day? And, you can make the array larger, and install devices
which BOOST the available voltage present on them, along the way to
the inverter(s), if you so desire.

--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4
Sat, 13
May 2017 15:42:03 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Again, no one said you can't buy a battery bank, only that it adds
significantly to the cost and has other disadvantages.

You asked about the cost. I answered.

Then he's the exceptional case and absent some compelling need for
solar, or the inability to use a calculator, nuts.

No. He has more money than he knows what to do with, actually.

What percent of the residential installs do you think have battery
banks?

I'd have no way of knowing. I don't install the systems all over the
country. I could only give you stats for this area, and, we're not
the only ones doing the installs here, so even those stats wouldn't
account for all systems with or without them.

Show us some write ups about all the ones being installed
for the masses that have battery banks. Are a small,
insignificant percentage doing it, typically for special reasons,
sure. The vast majority of installs going in today, no.

I'd have no reliable way of looking up said stats. I don't think you
could, either.

But so far, from everything I've seen, from everything you've
submitted as evidence, I have yet to see one that will power the
house with the grid down, unless it has a battery bank.

Not entirely correct, and, slightly dishonest of you to claim such.
You either skimmed the part about the controllers, or, you didn't,
but aren't wanting to discuss that aspect. Which is it?

Except of course that it's unlikely that many people are going to
want a battery bank, the cost and other issues that come with it.
Battery options have been available, but people are already
shelling out big bucks for the basic solar capability.

I never said it was a cheap option to go solar for a realistic
expectation of power. I've said several times, it'll be YEARS before
you see any possible return on your investment, tax credits or not.

Funny how you post something that is exactly in line with what
we've been telling you

No, it's not inline with what you've been telling me. You've made
your assumptions based on what the power companies in your locale are
doing. Which doesn't apply across the entire United States.

And in most cases, they are buying it because they are Forced
by govt to buy it and they are paying inflated rates for it.

Show me the stats to support this. Not what you think, not what your
power company provides, but, some real stats, that federally claim
power company will pay such and such per kilowatt returned to the
grid.


So whats going on in Tennessee? Well, not much. Nothing in
fact. Tennessee has absolutely no renewables portfolio, no targets
€“ nothing.

Correct. So your federally mandated claims applies here, how?

So, right there, they admit that exactly what we said is true.

How's that? It states that Tennessee isn't under any mandate to pay
such and such amount to the owner for his power. You claimed
otherwise. Wheres your proof? I shared mine. Are you trying to move
the goalposts again, or, otherwise change the topic of discussion?

buy from. So, while TN isn't doing it, clearly these solar
promoters say they need to, to make solar happen. And on top of
that, you also have federal subsidies, in the form of tax credits,
and that is available in TN.

He's not taking advantage of them, and TN isn't playing ball with
your previous claim that the power company has to pay him a specific
amount for his power, which according to you, would have been more
than they can charge/otherwise source it elsewhere. Ie: you claimed
they were taking a loss on his array, and, you as well as others had
to make up the difference. But, you're wrong. You don't have a dog in
the race, infact. You're paying NOTHING for what he's doing, as I
said, originally.

He's taking a loss, and, he'll continue to eat it for years to
come because he didn't take advantage of any tax credits, loans,
etc. He paid cash for the entire system. he wanted it, he didn't
care if it made him money. To put it simply, the guy has more
cash than he has economic sense.

Bingo. Absent those subsidies, he'll never break even.

Well, in theory, he will, given enough time has passed and he lives
long enough. But, that wasn't his intention to begin with. I don't
think he could sell his monster size RV at a profit, either. it
started losing value the moment he drove it off the lot. but, it's
his, outright, as his the house, as is the solar array. Unless of
course, he doesn't pay his property taxes, then, well, you should
know how that goes. Or, maybe your state is different in that
respect. But, here, if you don't pay your taxes and enough time goes
by (I think it's two years now), they will come and auction your
house for the back taxes owed on it. YOUR house isn't really yours
here.


Which of course has nothing to do with the big picture, the true
cost and viability of solar.

I didn't claim that solar worked for everyone. I said it's a useful
source of energy if you have the means to harness it. He does, so...

How is he paying for the cost of the grid infrastructure if he's
not using and paying for any electricity? His neighbor, with a
$150 a month electric bill, he's paying for it.

He used* grid power at night time, when the pv array can't generate
enough power. During the day, the PV array makes enough juice to make
up for the previous 'losses' it sustained. So, he gets a tiny check
back, instead of a bill. He's paying for the infrastructure same as
his neighbor, a good ways down the road. he's just not having to pay
as much because he's not using as much. What he is using is being
placed back onto the grid during the daytime, more than offsetting
his costs as far as the power bill is concerned. He isn't getting a
special rate, he's just not using as much from the grid as his
neighbor.

* I've been informed as of yesterday that a battery bank has finally
been installed, so, he'll ONLY be using the grid in the event the
banks go down and the PV array isn't able to provide power.

He's NOT taking advantage of ANY. So, no, you're not paying for
it. None of you are.


I'd say his neighbors are paying for the cost of the grid
infrastructure that he makes use of. But granted, that's a small
subsidy.

They aren't paying any more than he is. He's using alternate power,
so...He's able to keep costs down in that regard. His neighbors have
the same choice, pending they could afford it. That's on them, not
him, if they cannot.

But what one unusual case is doing is irrelevant to the
big picture.

I wasn't discussing the 'big picture'. You and Mike? were.

And in the big picture, do you deny that solar is
receiving big subsidies? EG, federal tax credits, state credits in
some cases, utilities being forced to buy solar electric at
inflated rates?

Some utilities are being forced, but, not here. Otherwise, I agree.
If you have a problem with the rate your power company is being
'forced' to pay another for generated power, you should take that up
with those responsible for creating and passing those laws. I'm sure
your power company would appreciate it. And, others in your state as
well.


That doesn't change the fact that it is in most places. Or the
fact that your own link says that TN needs to start doing the
same.

That's because the individuals who are promoting solar would very
much like for TN power to be forced to pay an inflated rate for it.
It's good for THEIR bottom line. TN hasn't drank the koolaid (so
far), so it hasn't happened, here. Yet.

If solar is competitive without state assistance, why does
your own link point to the other states and say that TN needs to
do it too?

See above. They have a vested interest in it. A financial interest in
it. Solar rigs are expensive, so, anything they can do to give you
the impression it's not as expensive as it really is works to their
favor.

How is it my problem or fault that they have no means of storing
excess power for a rainy day?


No one said it was your fault. Good grief.

So why did you even bring that up? I'm not responsible for a power
companies lack of investing in gear able to store excess power when
it's available, to be used later. That's lack of foresight on them.

The problem is the rest of us are paying for it,
that it's totally economically unviable on it's own.

The rest of you are not paying a damn dime for his setup. He
didn't opt for any credits, loans, subsidies, nothing.


He's the exceptional case.

Always a condition for you to try and wiggle out of what you wrote,
eh? And you label me a troll...

You happened to come across one guy
who apparently has no taxable income, so he can't take advantage
of the federal credits.

Did I say that? No, I didn't. I said, he isn't taking advantage of
the credits.

And you happen to live in state that isn't subsidizing solar.

Correct.

And a guy who doesn't care that he's losing money on the whole
thing.

You're writing about a guy who buys a new RV, drives it out of state,
once or twice, gets another one, does the same thing. Leaving the
prior ones to rott. His backyard had four of them at last count. He
just doesn't care. Like I said, more money than he has economic
sense.


Wrong. What everyone said here from the beginning was that
without a battery bank

Actually, no, that's not what 'everyone' here said. Battery banks
didn't even come up until I mentioned them. You both claimed that
without grid power, it was dead in the water. And, that's not true.

Taken out of context. YOU claimed that he has power without the
grid, without a battery bank, with the sun shining. Sure, if he
has batteries then he will have power. I and Mike acknowledged
that from the beginning.

You and mike Acknowledged no such thing. Unless I missed a post, you
both claimed that without the grid, no power would be available. I
brought up the battery bank. Not either of you. Further, you both
seem to be of the mistaken impression it won't run without the grid
being 'hot' for safety, but, that's obviously NOT true either. It
will. And, it won't backfeed onto the grid if the grid is down,
either. It has an interlock to prevent that, same as a generator.



--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

On Sat, 13 May 2017 13:16:05 -0700, mike wrote:

On 5/13/2017 8:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:


I'd say his neighbors are paying for the cost of the grid infrastructure
that he makes use of. But granted, that's a small subsidy.

That's only because the penetration of rooftop solar is so small.
Consider the limiting case where YOU are the only one not using
rooftop solar. You'd be paying the entire cost of the grid which
is still capable of providing peak needs at night
and on cloudy days for all
those other people selling their peak power back to the utility.

My electrical bill was $30 for electricity and another $26 for
fixed costs. Would be interesting to know how that ratio would
change if everybody but me had rooftop solar without storage.

Rooftop solar without local storage is UNSUSTAINABLE.
Local storage is impractical with current technology
for anybody with grid access.

How much carbon is released while manufacturing/installing/maintaining
a rooftop solar system? What does all that additional installation
do to your property taxes, or roof maintenance costs, or home insurance
costs?
People just ignore the fact that local storage has its own
demons when it comes to production and recycling.

You can make a case for solar and wind farms, but as a
total supply of energy, it's impractical without a breakthrough
in storage.
Even with subsidies, the masses cannot afford rooftop solar.
Rooftop solar will never be a huge percentage of supply in
places where a grid exists.

Nuclear is the only technology on the horizon capable of
meeting our energy needs with low carbon footprint.
We spend money on giving away rooftop solar systems.
Perhaps that would be better spent on making nuclear safer.
Invest in a path that could actually provide a solution.

Tree huggers need to "take a timeout." Yes, nuclear
is gonna kill some people. But, so do automobiles.
It's the cost of progress.
In perspective, maybe we should outlaw automobiles.



Here in San Diego county we have a massive number of home PV systems
installed. Here at our home, we built and installed our own 10KW
ground mounted, grid connected system. As we have significant
technical capabilities between my Sons and I, my total costs were
about $19,000.

The ROI on the system is excellent as we were averaging $500 - $600
per month with a multi-tiered electricity billing system. In addition
to the PV panels, we installed an auxiliary switch gear and a
virtually brand new USMC 15kw diesel generator as a back up in case of
grid failures (under 100 hours on the engine). I purchased the
generator at auction for about $4500 (not included in the $19k
mentioned above) with a Caterpillar engine.

The system is not an uninterruptible power supply as I have no
batteries or other power storage devices, but we almost never have
power failures of any duration, maybe once every 5 years, if that. I
did give a lot of consideration to using a compressed or elevated
water tank as power storage options, but the ROI just didn't compute.

On 5/13/2017 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/13/2017 4:16 PM, mike wrote:



Nuclear is the only technology on the horizon capable of
meeting our energy needs with low carbon footprint.
We spend money on giving away rooftop solar systems.
Perhaps that would be better spent on making nuclear safer.
Invest in a path that could actually provide a solution.

Stop it now! Sensible solutions are not accepted. Only problem with
nukes is the regulations are so tough it is very difficult to get
approvals.

I'm all for tough safety regulations. I'm all for plans to deal
with waste products. Pick a technology. Select locations.
Pick a development plan.
Order some construction equipment.
Shoot protesters on sight and convert them to biofuel to run
the bulldozers. They approve of biofuel don't they?

Get on with it!!!



Any type of power plant is having tough times getting approvals yet we
keep buying electric powered technology and now we want electric cars.

Thank Eisenhower for approving the interstate highway system in 1956. It
could not b built today for all the protesters.

That's a problem with society. It takes a village to approve something.
It only takes a few dissenters to prevent it. The result is that
nothing gets done. The solution? Biofuel!!

Instead of "just say no" and setting police cars on fire, what if protesters
carried signs presenting well-thought-out complete solutions to
problems that included plans to fund them?

I'm not sure I concur that humans are the major driver of climate change.
4 billion years is a very long time. Climate change happened long
before we arrived.
There is just too little data and too many people cherry picking it
for their own agenda.
But, given the choice between a nuke in my back yard and
the potential for
total destruction of the planet, I'll take the nuke.

If you want to give me a rooftop solar system, I'll take that too.
Just don't expect it to affect anything but my short term cash flow
and the destruction of the current electricity distribution model.

Ed Pawlowski Sat,
13 May 2017 20:37:38 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On 5/13/2017 4:16 PM, mike wrote:



Nuclear is the only technology on the horizon capable of
meeting our energy needs with low carbon footprint.
We spend money on giving away rooftop solar systems.
Perhaps that would be better spent on making nuclear safer.
Invest in a path that could actually provide a solution.

Stop it now! Sensible solutions are not accepted. Only problem
with nukes is the regulations are so tough it is very difficult to
get approvals.

That's not the only problem. Poor designs, maintenance, etc also
contribute.

Any type of power plant is having tough times getting approvals
yet we keep buying electric powered technology and now we want
electric cars.

Well, no, not all of us.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

mike news May 2017 22:09:55 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

If you want to give me a rooftop solar system, I'll take that too.
Just don't expect it to affect anything but my short term cash
flow and the destruction of the current electricity distribution
model.

In the states, the electrical 'grid' is way behind the times, and
hasn't been properly maintained in decades.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

On 5/13/2017 2:43 PM, Diesel wrote:


You and mike Acknowledged no such thing. Unless I missed a post, you
both claimed that without the grid, no power would be available.


I don't recall ever saying that.

brought up the battery bank. Not either of you. Further, you both
seem to be of the mistaken impression it won't run without the grid
being 'hot'

I don't recall saying that either. I might have suggested that,
without an active grid connection, you have nowhere to sell your excess
daytime power, making a bad economic situation worse.

for safety, but, that's obviously NOT true either. It
will. And, it won't backfeed onto the grid if the grid is down,
either. It has an interlock to prevent that, same as a generator.

I maintain that rooftop solar doesn't make economic sense for
anybody with access to the grid. And it won't ever be able to
make a dent in global warming without a major breakthrough in
storage.
Subsidizing rooftop solar just makes me pay part of your expenses.
We'd be much better off subsidizing the creation of biofuel from
protesters and getting on with nuclear.

On 5/13/2017 2:43 PM, Diesel wrote:


Do you understand how many volts the PV array can still provide on a
cloudy day? And, you can make the array larger, and install devices
which BOOST the available voltage present on them, along the way to
the inverter(s), if you so desire.



This is the kind of data you need
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/map_p...er_dec2008.jpg

That's AVERAGE insolation without allowance for trees,
dirty panels, aging components, system inefficiencies, etc.
I expect that, with expensive panels and very efficient
converters, you might get 10% of that into useful AC power.

Depending on how far below average before the power cuts off
you're willing to go, you may want several days of storage
capacity and twice the number of solar panels.
If you're using batteries for storage, double the number
so you don't overstress them.

In summer, many of us would have excess capacity out the...
You happen to be in a sweet spot for solar.

If you are not willing to do that, you need the grid.
And you need me to pay for your abuse of the grid.

On 5/13/2017 2:51 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:


Here in San Diego county we have a massive number of home PV systems
installed. Here at our home, we built and installed our own 10KW
ground mounted, grid connected system. As we have significant
technical capabilities between my Sons and I, my total costs were
about $19,000.

The ROI on the system is excellent as we were averaging $500 - $600
per month with a multi-tiered electricity billing system. In addition
to the PV panels, we installed an auxiliary switch gear and a
virtually brand new USMC 15kw diesel generator as a back up in case of
grid failures (under 100 hours on the engine). I purchased the
generator at auction for about $4500 (not included in the $19k
mentioned above) with a Caterpillar engine.

The system is not an uninterruptible power supply as I have no
batteries or other power storage devices, but we almost never have
power failures of any duration, maybe once every 5 years, if that. I
did give a lot of consideration to using a compressed or elevated
water tank as power storage options, but the ROI just didn't compute.

I think you're not the average installation.
You're in a great area for insolation.
You (ab)use the grid for storage.
You pay more than 10X the cost of electricity than I do.
If you even considered an elevated water storage system,
you probably don't live in a high-density area.

If your neighbor asked you for a quotation to install a turnkey system
like yours
based on retail costs for parts and labor and business profit,
not auction purchases, what would
that $23.5K system cost him?

I've lived in the same house since '72. I hear that's not the norm.
How much of your investment can you get back when you sell your house?
How much does solar complicate the sale?

There was a discussion a while back where people discussed
storage options. One fellow was generating Brown's gas from
his excess solar and storing it in huge barrels. He used
two concentric barrels with water so that the top barrel floated
up as gas was introduced. He burned the gas for light and heat
at night. Storing Hydrogen and Oxygen in the correct proportion
to create the biggest bang didn't seem prudent to me, but he was
a happy camper.

On Sat, 13 May 2017 18:26:56 -0700, mike wrote:

On 5/13/2017 2:51 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:


Here in San Diego county we have a massive number of home PV systems
installed. Here at our home, we built and installed our own 10KW
ground mounted, grid connected system. As we have significant
technical capabilities between my Sons and I, my total costs were
about $19,000.

The ROI on the system is excellent as we were averaging $500 - $600
per month with a multi-tiered electricity billing system. In addition
to the PV panels, we installed an auxiliary switch gear and a
virtually brand new USMC 15kw diesel generator as a back up in case of
grid failures (under 100 hours on the engine). I purchased the
generator at auction for about $4500 (not included in the $19k
mentioned above) with a Caterpillar engine.

The system is not an uninterruptible power supply as I have no
batteries or other power storage devices, but we almost never have
power failures of any duration, maybe once every 5 years, if that. I
did give a lot of consideration to using a compressed or elevated
water tank as power storage options, but the ROI just didn't compute.

I think you're not the average installation.
You're in a great area for insolation.
You (ab)use the grid for storage.

I feed a lot of power back into the grid and I am compensated a
negligible amount for doing so. My night time power use is fairly low
so my bill is quite low.

You pay more than 10X the cost of electricity than I do.
If you even considered an elevated water storage system,
you probably don't live in a high-density area.

I have multiple acres within 5 miles of the Pacific ocean in northern
San Diego county. I also considered building a compressed air energy
storage system, but again, the ROI was not there when I considered the
cost of owning and operating the generator.


If your neighbor asked you for a quotation to install a turnkey system
like yours
based on retail costs for parts and labor and business profit,
not auction purchases, what would
that $23.5K system cost him?

My upbringing taught me to do for myself whenever possible, I
certainly almost never pay retail for anything. I consider the
construction of a PV system to be relatively simple, one must simply
pay attention to detail and be meticulous in planning and execution.

There is no magic to obtaining equipment at reduced costs, one must
simply be persistent.


I've lived in the same house since '72. I hear that's not the norm.
How much of your investment can you get back when you sell your house?
How much does solar complicate the sale?

If this property were to be sold (unlikely), the solar would not
complicate the sale at all as I own it outright. In fact, this system
significantly increases the value of the home.


There was a discussion a while back where people discussed
storage options. One fellow was generating Brown's gas from
his excess solar and storing it in huge barrels. He used
two concentric barrels with water so that the top barrel floated
up as gas was introduced. He burned the gas for light and heat
at night. Storing Hydrogen and Oxygen in the correct proportion
to create the biggest bang didn't seem prudent to me, but he was
a happy camper.


Brown's gas? No thank you.

On 5/13/2017 7:42 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:


My upbringing taught me to do for myself whenever possible, I
certainly almost never pay retail for anything. I consider the
construction of a PV system to be relatively simple, one must simply
pay attention to detail and be meticulous in planning and execution.

There is no magic to obtaining equipment at reduced costs, one must
simply be persistent.


My point is that you represent a tiny fraction the population.

Joe truckdriver and Sally pianoteacher probably would have to have it
installed by
someone else at significantly increased cost and require significant
subsidization to make it cost effective.

On 5/13/2017 4:43 PM, Diesel wrote:

You and mike Acknowledged no such thing. Unless I missed a post, you

Damn! Word wall deleted.

mike news 2017 01:25:53 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On 5/13/2017 2:43 PM, Diesel wrote:


Do you understand how many volts the PV array can still provide on
a
cloudy day? And, you can make the array larger, and install
devices
which BOOST the available voltage present on them, along the way
to
the inverter(s), if you so desire.



This is the kind of data you need
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/map_p...er_dec2008.jpg

I don't need it. Someone else, might though.

In summer, many of us would have excess capacity out the...
You happen to be in a sweet spot for solar.

Indeed.

If you are not willing to do that, you need the grid.

Well, considering that I don't personally run Solar or other forms of
alternative power full time, I'd say your right.

And you need me to pay for your abuse of the grid.

I'm not abusing the grid, and, I don't need you to pay for me.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

mike news May 2017 01:24:35 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On 5/13/2017 2:43 PM, Diesel wrote:


You and mike Acknowledged no such thing. Unless I missed a post,
you both claimed that without the grid, no power would be
available.


I don't recall ever saying that.

Hmm. It's possible I have you confused for another. I'll check the
thread later for MIDs to confirm.

I maintain that rooftop solar doesn't make economic sense for
anybody with access to the grid. And it won't ever be able to
make a dent in global warming without a major breakthrough in
storage.

Global warming? Er, wait.. you actually think we're responsible for
it? You don't suppose this planet happens to go thru cycles, and,
this time, we're getting to observe it with the ability to record the
events?

Subsidizing rooftop solar just makes me pay part of your expenses.

I haven't subsidized anything. And, I don't like others paying for
anything of mine. Same with the health care issue that's presently on
going. I don't think I should be forced to pay for someone elses
problems. Nor punished for refusing to do so via the IRS.

We'd be much better off subsidizing the creation of biofuel from
protesters and getting on with nuclear.

Nuclear has it's own share of problems. For starters, what do you
plan to do with the spent fuel?

--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

On Sat, 13 May 2017 20:25:17 -0700, mike wrote:

On 5/13/2017 7:42 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:


My upbringing taught me to do for myself whenever possible, I
certainly almost never pay retail for anything. I consider the
construction of a PV system to be relatively simple, one must simply
pay attention to detail and be meticulous in planning and execution.

There is no magic to obtaining equipment at reduced costs, one must
simply be persistent.


My point is that you represent a tiny fraction the population.

Joe truckdriver and Sally pianoteacher probably would have to have it
installed by
someone else at significantly increased cost and require significant
subsidization to make it cost effective.

Many people in today's society have fallen into the trap of "calling
the guy", I am from the era when people, with the help of neighbors
would raise their own barns, fix their own cars, build their own
houses, dig their own wells and install their own windmill water
pumps.

Just because there are people out there who install this stuff for
profit doesn't mean people can't learn to do it themselves.

If you think you can't do something and must call a pro, undoubtedly
you will be proven correct.

Occasionally, I ponder dystopian scenarios where our society is thrown
back into a less technology centric era, due to a well directed
coronal mass ejection (CME) or an enemy EMP attack on our nation.
Scenarios where the most valuable skills include farming,
metalworking, carpentry, plumbing, forestry, etc. and I look around at
so many people who are considered to be highly skilled today and I
realize most of those would be worthless to society because they never
learned how to swing a hammer, turn a wrench, grow food or tend to
livestock.

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 5:47:03 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Sat, 13
May 2017 14:49:01 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:


During grid outages PV Inverter production cannot occur, so a home
with a PV inverter system installed will not have power during an
outage. However for homes that have a PV Inverter system installed
and are already selling power to the grid, it is still possible to
retrofit backup power using Conext XW+ or SW inverter chargers. In
a FIT program either Conext XW+ or SW is added behind PV inverter
to provide backup, no change to PV inverter FIT wiring is
required. However backup power is limited to the capacity of the
battery bank and the solar system cannot be used to charge the
batteries while the grid is down. I

I see you're intentionally confusing the retrofit options in place
of the one you specifically asked me about.




I'm not confusing anything at all. I used your
link to the manufacturer of the hybrid converter.
All 3 examples they show include a battery bank.
I also provided a link to the install manual,
cited where it clearly says it must be used with
a battery bank.



"The Conext XW+ Inverter/Charger operates with batteries as its
source of DC power. If DC power sources are connected directly to
the inverter, the DC rating of the inverter can be exceeded and
the inverter can be damaged.

That's because the battery bank isn't pushing 1000+ DC volts to it,
where as the PV array will, unless it's limited, via the controller option.


The point is there must be a battery bank.
If not, show us the application examples from
the manufacturer. It would be a high demand
product if they had what no one else has, a
converter that will power the house with the
grid down, without a battery bank. Where are
the examples? Instead, the install manually
clearly states the opposite, that it requires
a battery bank.


Battery Bank Requirements
The DC voltage of the Conext XW+ Inverter/Charger must match the
nominal voltage of the system and battery-connected devices. The
inverter is a 48 V inverter; therefore, the battery bank and
battery-connected devices in the system must be configured for 48
volts.

Yes. You cannot just tie the PV array into the battery bank circuit,
the incoming voltage is MUCH MUCH to high.

Another red herring. The point is that the
manufacturer says that a battery bank is
REQUIRED.



It must be reduced,
before entering the Inverter if it's being done this way. Which is
what the SMA unit is doing, essentially. Although, on a smaller scale.

Note what it says, is that it can supply a "single isolated
outlet". It does not say that it can be configured to power the
whole house.

I didn't say it could. I specifically said, "that can provide power
without the grid".

Oh, please. Here you go, distorting, taking
out of context, what the discussion was about.
We were talking about solar arrays that supply
power to the whole house and whether they can
operate without the grid and without a battery
bank. We were not talking about supplying just
limited power to one outlet.



I even quoted exactly what was written about it.
You'll notice, it's supplying power from the PV Array. Not the
battery bank.

Show us some examples of actual installations that do what you
claim.

http://solar.schneider-electric.com/...ff-grid-solar/

For off-grid residences, the Conext XW+ or Conext SW becomes the
primary power source and forms the grid, converting solar power and
battery reserves to AC power for loads.

Bingo! "Battery" is the operative word.
Again, thanks for proving yourself wrong.



Everyone is free to judge who's out of touch with the times.

Yep.

Show us examples of companies installing residential solar power
that feature it's ability to work during pour outages without a
battery bank.

See above. With the controller (an additional expense) you can
provide power to the inverter via the PV array without using
batteries.

Only you are claiming that, not the company.
And you continue to ignore the fact that if a
solar system could provide power to the house
during a grid outage without batteries, it
would be one hell of a selling point. So, show
us some websites of solar install companies
hawking that. Crickets....


It *can* couple a battery bank to it. What the controller
is actually doing is limiting the incoming voltage coming off the PV
array so it doesn't blow the inverter to pieces.

I'm starting to see why many? others have declared you a troll and
binned you. I'm not quite ready to do that, myself.


I've already seen why you are a troll, starting
with the crowd you dragged in here.



Key word: Batteries

Not quite. Which doesn't matter anymore,

It does matter, because so far, you haven't
shown us one solar install company offering
a home solar system that supplies power to the
whole house with the grid down, without a
battery bank.


I was informed yesterday
that he finally purchased and has since installed a battery bank.

Yes, I'm sure he reports back to you regularly.




I
do not have the specifications of the bank, But, I have asked and
should be hearing back shortly concerning it. I didn't attend the
install for that job, I was assigned someplace else. Apologies for
misleading you about not having battery bank; as, I didn't think he
had one, yet.


According to the install instructions for that
hybrid converter, which "I" supplied, it says
a battery bank is mandatory. Are they lying?


It's not a problem. It has an interlock which prevents it from
backfeeding onto a dead grid, just like a house generator does,
by code. As well as having a secondary interlock that he can flip
to isolate his house from the grid, whether it's hot or not.


Apparently the industry disagrees that backfeeding is a problem.

Did you ignore the lines following "It's not a problem" on purpose,
or? Just how do you suppose it's able to power his house on the
battery bank, without backfeeding the grid? Some kind of magic?

I don't claim to be an expert of the exact
details of the isolation problem. I can tell
you that you can find link after link from
solar companies, installers, green energy experts
citing that as one of the problems and reason
why the solar arrays being installed every day
can't operate without the grid.

Personally, I would think that the cloud problem
is bigger and insurmountable. What customer
wants a brownout or power cuttoff with every
passing cloud? THAT, plus the isolation issue
is why those few inverters have an outlet that
is only capable of supplying limited power.
So, you connect your phone charger, or the
charger for you sump pump battery, etc to it.
But you don't try to run a house off it.

This is real simple. Do you agree that if you
could run the array, supply power to the house,
without the grid being up and without a battery
bank, that it would be a powerful sales tool?
Homeowner's would love it. So, most of the
install companies would be offering it, most
of the eqpt manufacturer;s would be hawking it.
You would have power when your grid connected
neighbor did not. So, just show us some of them.
If you can't, case closed.




I don't think it's the only problem, ie clouds would seem to be
a bigger and insurmountable problem to me, without a battery bank
of course.

Do you understand how many volts the PV array can still provide on a
cloudy day?

Do you understand that power and energy are
not measured in volts? Good grief.



And, you can make the array larger, and install devices
which BOOST the available voltage present on them, along the way to
the inverter(s), if you so desire.


Simple, just show us the websites of all the
solar companies offering this for a residential
customer, ie offgrid power, with no battery bank.

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 4:17:35 PM UTC-4, mike wrote:
On 5/13/2017 8:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:


I'd say his neighbors are paying for the cost of the grid infrastructure
that he makes use of. But granted, that's a small subsidy.

That's only because the penetration of rooftop solar is so small.
Consider the limiting case where YOU are the only one not using
rooftop solar. You'd be paying the entire cost of the grid which
is still capable of providing peak needs at night
and on cloudy days for all
those other people selling their peak power back to the utility.


I agree, exactly right. And in some states, they
have instituted a charge on the solar homes to
start addressing exactly that. Which of course
has all the hippies up in arms, because they want
to hide the true cost.


My electrical bill was $30 for electricity and another $26 for
fixed costs. Would be interesting to know how that ratio would
change if everybody but me had rooftop solar without storage.

Rooftop solar without local storage is UNSUSTAINABLE.
Local storage is impractical with current technology
for anybody with grid access.

How much carbon is released while manufacturing/installing/maintaining
a rooftop solar system? What does all that additional installation
do to your property taxes, or roof maintenance costs, or home insurance
costs?

How long these last, what the maintenance costs
are, etc are still being learned. You have to
wonder how many people install solar on a house
with a 15 year old roof? Does the solar company
tell them, gee if you have a 15+ or maybe even
a 10 year old roof, you should factor in the cost
of removing and replacing the panels when you
need the roof replaced in 10 years? That honesty
would be a sales limiter. It would add thousands
to the cost of the new roof.




People just ignore the fact that local storage has its own
demons when it comes to production and recycling.

You can make a case for solar and wind farms, but as a
total supply of energy, it's impractical without a breakthrough
in storage.
Even with subsidies, the masses cannot afford rooftop solar.
Rooftop solar will never be a huge percentage of supply in
places where a grid exists.

Nuclear is the only technology on the horizon capable of
meeting our energy needs with low carbon footprint.
We spend money on giving away rooftop solar systems.
Perhaps that would be better spent on making nuclear safer.
Invest in a path that could actually provide a solution.

Tree huggers need to "take a timeout." Yes, nuclear
is gonna kill some people. But, so do automobiles.
It's the cost of progress.
In perspective, maybe we should outlaw automobiles.


As I said before, what always amuses me is how
the same environmentalists that tell us we're
all going to die from a global warming disaster,
are also against nuclear. They are even against
windmills and large solar arrays when it actually
comes to putting them in. As well as against
the new transmission lines needed to make it work.

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 5:51:45 PM UTC-4, Stormin' Norman wrote:


Here in San Diego county we have a massive number of home PV systems
installed. Here at our home, we built and installed our own 10KW
ground mounted, grid connected system. As we have significant
technical capabilities between my Sons and I, my total costs were
about $19,000.

The ROI on the system is excellent as we were averaging $500 - $600
per month with a multi-tiered electricity billing system.

Which is an example of what we were telling
Diesel, that solar needs artifically high prices.
CA has those high prices for electricity because
they won't let new nukes or other sources of
cheaper energy be built.

Did you take advantage of tax credits? Rebates?
What price do you get for excess electricity
you put back into the system?

Here in NJ they have forced the utilities to buy
X%, which increases each year, of their electric
from clean sources. So, whatever electric you
generate with a home solar system, you earn
credits for it based on how much energy the
array produces. It doesn't matter if you use it
or it goes into the grid. Then, they have
auctions where the power companies buy these
credits and it counts toward their clean energy
mandate.


In addition
to the PV panels, we installed an auxiliary switch gear and a
virtually brand new USMC 15kw diesel generator as a back up in case of
grid failures (under 100 hours on the engine). I purchased the
generator at auction for about $4500 (not included in the $19k
mentioned above) with a Caterpillar engine.


The system is not an uninterruptible power supply as I have no
batteries or other power storage devices, but we almost never have
power failures of any duration, maybe once every 5 years, if that. I
did give a lot of consideration to using a compressed or elevated
water tank as power storage options, but the ROI just didn't compute.

It does matter, because so far, you haven't
shown us one solar install company offering
a home solar system that supplies power to the
whole house with the grid down, without a
battery bank.

This ****ing contest is going nowhere.
Without the grid or battery backup,
there is no way that you can extract more energy
than the sun is producing.
If you live where there is night you have a problem.
If you live where there are clouds, you have a problem.

When the cloud passes and the energy available
is less than is being consumed, you can either let the
voltage decrease, brown out, and hope your devices
shutdown gracefully and don't
injure themselves, or you can predict the future an shed load,
or you can shut it down.
Then, what do you do when the insolation starts to increase?
Some devices, like the air conditioner don't like to be
restarted under pressure, especially when there's insufficient
voltage/current available.

Many devices are designed to run on constant voltage.
Solar panels are more like constant current.
It's pretty easy to get into a limit cycle oscillation.

Sure, you can conjure up all manner
of smart control, but for anything other than shutdown, users
might consider the vendor liable for destruction of their stuff.

For a commercial product without battery backup, the most
sensible option is to shut it down when the grid ceases.
'Clever' people might do otherwise.

On 5/13/2017 2:40 PM, Tony944 wrote:
"mike" wrote in message news On 5/13/2017 8:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:

I'd say his neighbors are paying for the cost of the grid infrastructure
that he makes use of. But granted, that's a small subsidy.
That's only because the penetration of rooftop solar is so small.
Consider the limiting case where YOU are the only one not using
rooftop solar. You'd be paying the entire cost of the grid which
is still capable of providing peak needs at night
and on cloudy days for all
those other people selling their peak power back to the utility.
My electrical bill was $30 for electricity and another $26 for
fixed costs. Would be interesting to know how that ratio would
change if everybody but me had rooftop solar without storage.

*I do not read all stories about Solar. However it is necessary to know *
*Did you purchase the whole solar system or do you leasing it.*
*How many kilowatt is your system.*
*How much you are paying per kilowatt Solar Co. *
*How much you are paying Electrical Co. for paper work monthly?*

Hard to tell from your unusual posting format.
If you're talking to me, my consumption numbers are in the above paragraph.
I don't have solar for two reasons.
1)My neighbors have 60' trees that block a lot of sun.
The fast and loose solar system providers won't touch it because
they can't make enough money off me.
2)Without subsidies, rooftop solar doesn't pencil out for me
even if there were no trees. I'd be dead long before payback.
It's far too cloudy in Oregon.


Rooftop solar without local storage is UNSUSTAINABLE.
Local storage is impractical with current technology
for anybody with grid access.
How much carbon is released while manufacturing/installing/maintaining
a rooftop solar system? What does all that additional installation
do to your property taxes, or roof maintenance costs, or home insurance
costs?

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 5:47:03 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Sat, 13
May 2017 15:42:03 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Again, no one said you can't buy a battery bank, only that it adds
significantly to the cost and has other disadvantages.

You asked about the cost. I answered.

Then he's the exceptional case and absent some compelling need for
solar, or the inability to use a calculator, nuts.

No. He has more money than he knows what to do with, actually.

What percent of the residential installs do you think have battery
banks?

I'd have no way of knowing. I don't install the systems all over the
country. I could only give you stats for this area, and, we're not
the only ones doing the installs here, so even those stats wouldn't
account for all systems with or without them.

Show us some write ups about all the ones being installed
for the masses that have battery banks. Are a small,
insignificant percentage doing it, typically for special reasons,
sure. The vast majority of installs going in today, no.

I'd have no reliable way of looking up said stats. I don't think you
could, either.

But so far, from everything I've seen, from everything you've
submitted as evidence, I have yet to see one that will power the
house with the grid down, unless it has a battery bank.

Not entirely correct, and, slightly dishonest of you to claim such.
You either skimmed the part about the controllers, or, you didn't,
but aren't wanting to discuss that aspect. Which is it?


Are you referring to the Schneider link? I
addressed what you excerpted. It talks about
systems with batteries. I looked at the link,
which was to a whole damn website and from what
I see there, I don't see an example of a grid
tied system, without batteries, that supplies
power with the grid down. If you have it,
give us the link to that, not a whole website.
Good grief.




Except of course that it's unlikely that many people are going to
want a battery bank, the cost and other issues that come with it.
Battery options have been available, but people are already
shelling out big bucks for the basic solar capability.

I never said it was a cheap option to go solar for a realistic
expectation of power.

And yet the whole context of this thread was
about the economics, viability of solar. If
it's unrealistic, what's the point?



I've said several times, it'll be YEARS before
you see any possible return on your investment, tax credits or not.

Funny how you post something that is exactly in line with what
we've been telling you

No, it's not inline with what you've been telling me. You've made
your assumptions based on what the power companies in your locale are
doing. Which doesn't apply across the entire United States.


Are you denying that federal tax credits have
been available for a long time in TN? Denying that solar is heavily subsidized in the USA as
a whole? And note that your experience with one
five sigma customer doesn't change that.



And in most cases, they are buying it because they are Forced
by govt to buy it and they are paying inflated rates for it.

Show me the stats to support this. Not what you think, not what your
power company provides, but, some real stats, that federally claim
power company will pay such and such per kilowatt returned to the
grid.


Here's one example from NJ:

http://www.njcleanenergy.com/srecpricing

This is just one part of the subsidizing. NJ
electric companies are mandated to buy increasing
share of "clean" energy. Buying the credits
discussed on that link is part of it. For
every solar home, whatever TOTAL energy it
produces, the state gives the homeowner a
certificate showing X amount of power was
produced. It doesn't matter if the home
consumed all of it, part of it, etc. All
that matters is the total. Then they have
auctions where the power companies bid on those
certificates, buy them from the solar home
owners, to meet part of their clean energy
mandate. On top of that, the utility also
pays the homeowner for energy actually put into
the grid. Now, that's about as mandated and
subsidized as it gets and NJ is not unique.
There are obviously other tax breaks, federal
state, etc., rebates, etc.



So whats going on in Tennessee? Well, not much. Nothing in
fact. Tennessee has absolutely no renewables portfolio, no targets
€“ nothing.

Correct. So your federally mandated claims applies here, how?


I never said there was a federally mandated
requirement. I said there was federal subsidies
in the form of tax credits. TN is part of the
USA, no? But an example of a federal mandate
is the EPA was in the process of forcing utilities
in the USA to get an increasing share of their
energy from sources that don't produce CO2.
Trump is apparently gutting that, but states,
eg NJ are already doing it.


So, right there, they admit that exactly what we said is true.

How's that? It states that Tennessee isn't under any mandate to pay
such and such amount to the owner for his power. You claimed
otherwise.

I didn't claim that TN specifically was under
a mandate. I said it is being used to subsidize
solar electric across much of the USA. Have
you even been to a solar electric install sales
pitch? The first things they tell you are about
the tax credits, the rebates, the certificate
program here in NJ, etc. It's what it takes to
make it competitive. And note your nut case
that doesn't give a damn about money, is the
exceptional case.


Wheres your proof?

I gave you a direct link to one subsidy program.
You came in here apparently totally ignorant of
the fact that solar is heavily subsidized.
Nuff said.


I shared mine. Are you trying to move
the goalposts again, or, otherwise change the topic of discussion?


The issue was that solar is heavily subsidized.
Everyone here seems to know that except you.

The other issue was whether the huge number of
residential solar installs out there can power
the house without the grid or without batteries.
So far, you've provided nothing to support that
claim. Every cite says BATTERIES or a powered
up grid.



buy from. So, while TN isn't doing it, clearly these solar
promoters say they need to, to make solar happen. And on top of
that, you also have federal subsidies, in the form of tax credits,
and that is available in TN.

He's not taking advantage of them,

Which of course is irrelevant. And unless you;re
his tax accountant, how would you even know?

and TN isn't playing ball with
your previous claim that the power company has to pay him a specific
amount for his power, which according to you, would have been more
than they can charge/otherwise source it elsewhere.

For it to be true in many places, doesn't require
that it has to be true in TN. Capiche?



Ie: you claimed
they were taking a loss on his array, and, you as well as others had
to make up the difference. But, you're wrong.

Who should we believe, you or the utilities?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...b89_story.html


Industry officials say they support their customers right to generate electricity on their own property, but they say rooftop solars new popularity is creating a serious cost imbalance. While homeowners with solar panels usually see dramatic reductions in their electric bills, they still rely on the grid for electricity at night and on cloudy days. The utility collects less revenue, even though the infrastructure costs €” from expensive power plants to transmission lines and maintenance crews €” remain the same.

Ultimately, someone pays those costs, said David K. Owens, an executive vice president for Edison Electric Institute, the trade association that represents the nations investor-owned utilities



You don't have a dog in
the race, infact. You're paying NOTHING for what he's doing, as I
said, originally.


You seem to think your one 5 sigma case, if that
is even true, represents the typical case, the
majority of cases. I do have a dog in the fight.
I'm helping pay the freight for my neighbor's
solar system here, as outlined by Mike and in the
WP article. I'm also paying it in the form of tax
subsidies. Give my neighbor a $10K tax break,
leaves the rest of us paying more. Capiche?



He's taking a loss, and, he'll continue to eat it for years to
come because he didn't take advantage of any tax credits, loans,
etc. He paid cash for the entire system. he wanted it, he didn't
care if it made him money. To put it simply, the guy has more
cash than he has economic sense.

Bingo. Absent those subsidies, he'll never break even.

Well, in theory, he will, given enough time has passed and he lives
long enough.

The system has a finite life.


But, that wasn't his intention to begin with.

Why do you keep going back to your one 5 sigma
example that isn't representative of most of
the installs?

here.


Which of course has nothing to do with the big picture, the true
cost and viability of solar.

I didn't claim that solar worked for everyone. I said it's a useful
source of energy if you have the means to harness it. He does, so...

The discussion wasn't about if it made sense for
one guy, the discussion was about the true cost
of solar installed across the country to supply
energy and whether it's economically viable,
absent subsidies.



How is he paying for the cost of the grid infrastructure if he's
not using and paying for any electricity? His neighbor, with a
$150 a month electric bill, he's paying for it.

He used* grid power at night time, when the pv array can't generate
enough power. During the day, the PV array makes enough juice to make
up for the previous 'losses' it sustained. So, he gets a tiny check
back, instead of a bill. He's paying for the infrastructure same as
his neighbor, a good ways down the road.

No, he's not. Because the neighbor is buying
100% of his electric from the grid, while the
solar guy could be buying 5% or 0%. Read the
WP article.



he's just not having to pay
as much because he's not using as much.

And it doesn't fairly represent his using the
grid, because the pricing model is based on the
old, 100% of your power from the grid. Read
the WP.


What he is using is being
placed back onto the grid during the daytime, more than offsetting
his costs as far as the power bill is concerned. He isn't getting a
special rate, he's just not using as much from the grid as his
neighbor.

* I've been informed as of yesterday that a battery bank has finally
been installed, so, he'll ONLY be using the grid in the event the
banks go down and the PV array isn't able to provide power.

He's NOT taking advantage of ANY. So, no, you're not paying for
it. None of you are.


I'd say his neighbors are paying for the cost of the grid
infrastructure that he makes use of. But granted, that's a small
subsidy.

They aren't paying any more than he is.

Yes they are. This is like a customer buying
1000 tons of something from a business and
getting a price of $100 a ton, then reducing
his purchases, but not the overhead in servicing
the account, to 10 tons and then paying the same
$100 a ton rate. Read the WP. And it's all over
the news as well. Google broken?



He's using alternate power,
so...He's able to keep costs down in that regard. His neighbors have
the same choice, pending they could afford it.

And like Mike and I are telling you, if enough
of his neighbors did the same thing, the electric
company would go broke.


You happened to come across one guy
who apparently has no taxable income, so he can't take advantage
of the federal credits.

Did I say that? No, I didn't. I said, he isn't taking advantage of
the credits.


You didn't even know that solar is heavily
subsidized and needs to be for it to be viable.
THAT was the issue. And it is being subsidized
in TN, via fed tax credits. That you have one
5 sigma case, if true, doesn't change it.]
And BTW, unless you do his taxes, how do you
know if he takes a fed credit on his income tax
or not?

And you happen to live in state that isn't subsidizing solar.

Correct.

And a guy who doesn't care that he's losing money on the whole
thing.

You're writing about a guy who buys a new RV, drives it out of state,
once or twice, gets another one, does the same thing. Leaving the
prior ones to rott. His backyard had four of them at last count. He
just doesn't care. Like I said, more money than he has economic
sense.


Wrong. What everyone said here from the beginning was that
without a battery bank

Actually, no, that's not what 'everyone' here said. Battery banks
didn't even come up until I mentioned them. You both claimed that
without grid power, it was dead in the water. And, that's not true.

BS. We both claimed that the typical residential
system, without batteries, is dead when the grid
goes down. And even the one your one case guy
has is dead according to the manufacturer of that
hybrid inverter. The install instructions only
show it installed WITH A BATTERY BANK and it
says it must be used with a battery bank.



Taken out of context. YOU claimed that he has power without the
grid, without a battery bank, with the sun shining. Sure, if he
has batteries then he will have power. I and Mike acknowledged
that from the beginning.

You and mike Acknowledged no such thing. Unless I missed a post, you
both claimed that without the grid, no power would be available.

Good grief. Again, context is everything.
You talked about your example of a grid tied
system with NO BATTERIES. So, Mike asked if
your guy was aware that without batteries, if
the grid goes down, he has no power. THAT
is how every system I've seen, listened to sales
pitches for, read about works. Now you've
changed your tune, to a scenario that has batteries.



I
brought up the battery bank. Not either of you. Further, you both
seem to be of the mistaken impression it won't run without the grid
being 'hot' for safety, but, that's obviously NOT true either. It
will.

Who should we believe, you or the companies
selling and installing it? I've asked several
times now, provide us with cites to companies
selling it, installing it, where they talk about
this great selling feature, that it will work
to power your house without the grid and without
batteries.

On Sun, 14 May 2017 11:50:57 -0700, mike wrote:


2)Without subsidies, rooftop solar doesn't pencil out for me
even if there were no trees. I'd be dead long before payback.
It's far too cloudy in Oregon.


So it won't work in Florida or Arizona or Nevada?
Do you want to outlaw it?

Which of course has nothing to do with the big picture, the true
cost and viability of solar.

I didn't claim that solar worked for everyone. I said it's a useful
source of energy if you have the means to harness it. He does, so...

The discussion wasn't about if it made sense for
one guy, the discussion was about the true cost
of solar installed across the country to supply
energy and whether it's economically viable,
absent subsidies.



I understand that there is some benefit to a distributed
generation system with distributed storage.

But what about economy of scale?
If we took all those rooftop subsidies and applied
them to BIG solar farms, would we be getting more watt-hours
for the buck? Maybe you use mirrors and steam instead
of PV. And maybe a nuke on site to even things out.
When you have a LOT of energy, it opens up alternative
storage methods. Pumping water uphill would never make
sense for average joe. For a utility company, maybe it does.

The problem with all this is communication. When everybody
sees everything that goes on, there's so much opportunity
to disagree that all you get is arguing. Maybe we should
nuke twitter and get on with doing stuff.
You can fix most any bad decision. You can't fix inaction.
It appears that inaction costs more than actually doing something.
What we have is INACTION.

On 5/14/2017 1:26 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 14 May 2017 11:50:57 -0700, mike wrote:


2)Without subsidies, rooftop solar doesn't pencil out for me
even if there were no trees. I'd be dead long before payback.
It's far too cloudy in Oregon.


So it won't work in Florida or Arizona or Nevada?
Do you want to outlaw it?


Not at all. Wherever it's economically feasible,
they should do a lot of it.

I want to repurpose the rooftop subsidies to projects
that might have a real effect in the long term.
I submit that rooftop solar is inefficient use of
government resources.
You never know what is fake news, but I hear that
US rooftop solar is doing a lot for the Chinese economy.

The advantage of rooftop solar is political. The treehuggers
and doogooders have no concentration of power to protest.
They have no leverage. Why would you protest a handout anyway.

Utilities are a far better place to protest.
You can cause the big boys to waste a fortune responding
to protests and sitins and stupid requirements that don't
make economic sense. Block solar farms. Block wind farms.
Block strengthening the grid. You could erase most of the
dictionary. Only word protesters need is "NO"!
You shouldn't be able to block any project without providing
a VIABLE alternative that you will approve and FUND.
If you vote against more energy production, let's cut your
energy first. See how that plays out when you get to sacrifice
for your beliefs.
Put your tax dollars where your mouth is. And you don't
get to bitch about the stuff that doesn't get done because
you diverted the funds.

"Tony944" writes:

Rooftop solar without local storage is UNSUSTAINABLE.
Local storage is impractical with current technology
for anybody with grid access.

Second time you've posted this.

I hope anyone else that reads this can see right through
the lack of logic in those assertions.

Even though you uppercase "unsustainable", you don't seem
to notice how your second, supporting, statement
uses the word "impractical" which is quite a different thing.

The word unsustainable is used in an entirely different way
when discussing eco-issues. In fact, something can be
"impractical" in that it costs more and be sustainable too.

Ain't it wonderful how the USA has achieved energy independence
as past presidents have called for?

--
Dan Espen

trader_4
Sun, 14
May 2017 17:20:37 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

I'm not confusing anything at all.

Yes, you are, intentionally I suspect. You hate being wrong.



I didn't say it could. I specifically said, "that can provide
power without the grid".

Oh, please. Here you go, distorting, taking
out of context, what the discussion was about.


I was waiting for you to make more unfounded accusations. Looks like
I didn't have to wait very long.

Again, thanks for proving yourself wrong.

I realize you wish that was the case, but, it's not.

See above. With the controller (an additional expense) you can
provide power to the inverter via the PV array without using
batteries.

Only you are claiming that, not the company.

I'm only claiming it because i've done it. The company could too,
but, they'd have to sell you a small box to do the tie in for you.
More work on their part. They may not recoup the costs.

It *can* couple a battery bank to it. What the controller
is actually doing is limiting the incoming voltage coming off the
PV array so it doesn't blow the inverter to pieces.

I'm starting to see why many? others have declared you a troll
and binned you. I'm not quite ready to do that, myself.


I've already seen why you are a troll, starting
with the crowd you dragged in here.

Like I told you, previously (even offered to use crayons), I didn't
drag anyone here. Now I'll use crayons and write in a way a small
child could understand with ease: I followed them here. You're
welcome.

Yes, I'm sure he reports back to you regularly.

Me personally? No, but, he does report to one of the companies that
cuts me a paycheck...I could just take a drive to the jobsite and ask
him myself, but, why bother doing so when I can just ask one of the
people above me?

According to the install instructions for that
hybrid converter, which "I" supplied, it says
a battery bank is mandatory. Are they lying?

Well, they're aren't being completely honest. That *could* be blamed
on the advertising dept not keeping in synch with the r&D dept,
though. I've been in such situations myself with a software
company...

Did you ignore the lines following "It's not a problem" on
purpose, or? Just how do you suppose it's able to power his house
on the battery bank, without backfeeding the grid? Some kind of
magic?

I don't claim to be an expert of the exact
details of the isolation problem.

That was obvious, the you aren't an expert on this subject, part.

I can tell
you that you can find link after link from
solar companies, installers, green energy experts
citing that as one of the problems and reason
why the solar arrays being installed every day
can't operate without the grid.

So the battery bank is for? crickets, you said, right?

This is real simple. Do you agree that if you
could run the array, supply power to the house,
without the grid being up and without a battery
bank, that it would be a powerful sales tool?

Not really. it's another device the manufacturer would either have to
incorporate into the inverter itself, or sell seperately. Without any
guarantee of recouping their monies. If they opted to just include it
in the inverter, it would require a larger inverter and increase
costs. Making them, not as competitive as another.

If and when solar 'takes off', then, they might want to seriously
consider making a few design changes, and/or selling the unit
seperately. As it is presently, it's very specific to the PV array
and the inverter you wish to tie it into.

You still have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

Homeowner's would love it.

Not enough home owners are buying what's already available...

You would have power when your grid connected
neighbor did not. So, just show us some of them.
If you can't, case closed.

I already did. You looked all over the site, remember?


Do you understand how many volts the PV array can still provide
on a cloudy day?

Do you understand that power and energy are
not measured in volts? Good grief.

Yes, actually I do. Back to my original question, though.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

mike news 2017 18:39:50 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:


It does matter, because so far, you haven't
shown us one solar install company offering
a home solar system that supplies power to the
whole house with the grid down, without a
battery bank.

This ****ing contest is going nowhere.
Without the grid or battery backup,
there is no way that you can extract more energy
than the sun is producing.

Well, that depends on the hardware you have access to, and how much you
understand about electronics and transformers. But, I digress. I
realize, many people have no useful knowledge of either. With that
said, I'm *not* one of those people.

'Clever' people might do otherwise.

Indeed.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

On 5/14/2017 7:34 PM, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Sun, 14
May 2017 17:20:37 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

I'm not confusing anything at all.

Yes, you are, intentionally I suspect. You hate being wrong.

Pot Kettle Black

Industry officials say they support their customers right to generate electricity on their own property, but they say rooftop solars new popularity is creating a serious cost imbalance. While homeowners with solar panels usually see dramatic reductions in their electric bills, they still rely on the grid for electricity at night and on cloudy days. The utility collects less revenue, even though the infrastructure costs €” from expensive power plants to transmission lines and maintenance crews €” remain the same.

Ultimately, someone pays those costs, said David K. Owens, an executive vice president for Edison Electric Institute, the trade association that represents the nations investor-owned utilities


that has some truth to it but also leaves out some truth.
electricity cost more to make during peak times.
The power company wants you to use less power during peak times so they don't
have to build a new peaker plant.
So there is two sides to this coin.
Solar unfairly uses the grid for storage without paying.
Solar helps the power company smooth out the peak load.

I think the only fair way to sort this out is to charge the true cost for each aspect of usage.

One cost for simply connecting to the grid to cover line maintenance.
You pay this amount even if your net kWh = 0

Another fee for peak daytime kWh in or out.

Another lower fee for off peak kWh in or out.

The power company of course want to present only the the side of the coin that gets them more money.

m

On 5/7/2017 12:54 PM, mike wrote:
On 5/7/2017 7:32 AM, Colonel Edmund J. Burke wrote:
Only stoopid arseholes fell for that solar bull****.
Folks with more money than brains.


I expect that there were many scams, but for a while,
there were subsidies that were not bull****.
You could get your house weatherized for free if you happened
to be in the right place at the right time with no income.
Paid for at retail, it would never pencil out.

Solar power is always a good deal if you get someone
else to pay for it. I would have snatched it up except
that I had 60 foot trees on adjacent property that
blocked the roof and people pushing it couldn't make
enough money off me.


If the U.S. Government was serious, converting from fossil fuel to
solar, it would play a more active role in getting it up and going.
And that's the bottom line. Anything else is just wishful thinking and
rationalization.

On Mon, 15 May 2017 07:54:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:




Industry officials say they support their customers’ right to generate electricity on their own property, but they say rooftop solar’s new popularity is creating a serious cost imbalance. While homeowners with solar panels usually see dramatic reductions in their electric bills, they still rely on the grid for electricity at night and on cloudy days. The utility collects less revenue, even though the infrastructure costs — from expensive power plants to transmission lines and maintenance crews — remain the same.

Ultimately, someone pays those costs, said David K. Owens, an executive vice president for Edison Electric Institute, the trade association that represents the nation’s investor-owned utilities


that has some truth to it but also leaves out some truth.
electricity cost more to make during peak times.

It does not cost more to make power during peak times, it cost more to
buy it during those periods due to the law of supply and demand.

The power company wants you to use less power during peak times so they don't
have to build a new peaker plant.
So there is two sides to this coin.
Solar unfairly uses the grid for storage without paying.

In my area, we pay a flat fee for access to the grid, in other words,
everyone who is connected to the grid, pays to support the grid.


Solar helps the power company smooth out the peak load.

The utility company is getting quite a bargain as the price they pay
individual solar generators is significantly less then they would pay
to buy power from a commercial producer.


I think the only fair way to sort this out is to charge the true cost for each aspect of usage.

One cost for simply connecting to the grid to cover line maintenance.
You pay this amount even if your net kWh = 0

Already exists in many regions.


Another fee for peak daytime kWh in or out.

Rates in our region are based upon total use, not time of day. The
more you use, the more you pay based upon a tiered rate structure.


Another lower fee for off peak kWh in or out.

The power company of course want to present only the the side of the coin that gets them more money.

m