ECN Forum
Hi y'all,

fancy sharing your fears regarding renewable energy, FiTs, RHi, micro-generation and all associated aspects?

What are YOUR causes of concern?

Thanks in advance...

Ant.
Ant,

Let me first welcome you to this board, there are some very knowledgeable people here. They are very friendly and we love to exchange idea and thoughts.

As for renewable energy, I think it is a great idea. One of my "concerns" I think would be what to do with solar panels if they break. Can they be thrown out with the regular trash or do they need special handling?
Cherrio from across the pond. Welcome to ECN Forum.

My fear fear of govenment red tape and the high cost of development will hinder progress. Very high fuel costs validates the expense of alternative energy remotely but not in town. That's has to do with location as well up in Alaska.

I am a big supporter of solar but the cost is out of the hands of the average Joe. Now with the economy in the toilet. Cuts in the demands which cuts production, which cuts profits which cuts investment into bigger faster cheaper. Even with solar panels, all the raw materials come in by boat, truck, and plane which takes fossil fuel to get from the ground to the customer so that pushes prices up
Module recycling is already happening and fortunately for the industry it appears to be self regulating. Here is one of many articles addressing the solar module end of life concern.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/solar-panel-recycling-460810
Depends of what part of the country you are in and what kind of rebates and incentives are available. Joe Solar up in Alaska will probably have a harder time than someone in New Jersey, Arizona or California. Solar installatioins have steadily increased over the last few years but we can do better.

This industry is incentive driven (http://www.dsireusa.org/) and I think we need to get off that model eventually, especially before the money dries up. I don't think that is possible until the modules themselves really come down in price.

Ontario, Canada is enjoying a boom in solar because of a very lucrative microFiT program, the same type that Germany has had for 5 years. FiTs are a great way to encourage people to install solar as long as the program can sustain itself. Spain, for example, showed us how to run a FiT program, and how not to run one.
Cost is clearly the biggest issue

I am not sure shifting the burden to the overextended government is a great idea.
If 3/4ths of the cost is hidden in government subsidies and the government is borrowing 40% of that from the Chinese, is that really better?

There are some renewable energy ideas that do make fiscal sense but none of them involve electricity. Heating water is a winner, either for domestic use or for swimming pools and spas.
Using 4 swimming pool collectors I was able to get my spa within 10 degrees of useful, virtually free (covered spa, open collectors). Adding the last 10 degrees was a whole lot cheaper than starting with a 40 degree delta. Next year I an going to try it with glazed collectors. My fear is I could get it too hot.
One concern I have w/respect to Germany's Feed In Tariffs, is that they may have gone too far. It is my understanding that they are now suffering from grid instability because they now have a significant percentage of wind generation.

Relatively speaking, Germany is a small country. When a large weather front moves thru, the wind generation shifts significantly, thus effecting grid stability. As they tie in to the surronding grids, that effect may be reduced.

I like to go look at wind farms when we travel and I notice that it you watch long enough you will see them feather a couple turbines. The only thing that makes sense to me is they are using the wind generators to balance the grid because they don't necessarily feather them all. Usually it is only one or two.
I do wonder how you keep a grid balanced when you have a significant amount of the feed being at the whims of wind and clouds.

I was reading an interesting story in a magazine at the doctor's office yesterday. They are building a dam across some big body of tidal water and using it as a bridge with the whole under part being low speed turbines that catch the tide. They said the Golden Gate Bridge could generate enough power to run the whole bay area. I wonder what the down side is ... you know there is one.
Would they need gates for ships or would the channel still be small enough to allow enough water to back up to run the turbines?
Quote
They are building a dam across some big body of tidal water and using it as a bridge with the whole under part being low speed turbines that catch the tide. They said the Golden Gate Bridge could generate enough power to run the whole bay area. I wonder what the down side is ... you know there is one.

Would they need gates for ships or would the channel still be small enough to allow enough water to back up to run the turbines?


I suspect the width and depth of the shipping channel would depend on the volume of the bay and the speed of the tidal shift. A huge bay would probably just leave a shipping channel open. A smaller bay may need a partial or full dam to drive enough water thru the stationary turbines.
Can you imagine the environmental impact statement on doing something like that?
Greg--

And those poor fishes getting bonked on the head. Just two words "Shark Bait."
The hidden environmental impacts of some low-carbon energy systems are still to be fully assessed: Low frequency turbine noise making folks ill, turbines killing bats and birds which eat a lot of bugs, thus pushing up farm insecticide use. Tidal tubines silting up estuaries and interfering with lucrative fish/mollusc populations or causing land erosion on coastal areas miles from the sites. Loss of tidal wetlands vital to many migratory birds. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
I was just reading an article on AvWeb about a flying wind turbine that will fly like a kite about 2000 feet in the air to catch upper level winds.
I had another thought. ( Which doesn't happen often) smile With PV systems, I was worried about live voltage running from the roof to the PV equipment. Now the new PV systems have the micro inverters on the roof, so if anything happens, the AC from the roof down will shut off.

The original PV systems with the DC running down can be dangerous. There was reports of firemen getting hurt on the DC voltage while they were trying to put out house fires.
Harold:

Our FD here has concerns about the structures with PV systems. Not so much resi, but the comm/whse installs. We discussed having some type of signage installed, but stumbled on what 'code' could mandate that. We are thinking of requesting signage like "Solar Panels on Roof" posted on the structure, or something similar to the triangle symbol for truss roof construction warning.

The 'bigger' (17k+ panels) install contractor and bldg owner here made arrangements with the Fire Dept to have all four tours visit the site for a 'hands on' look at the system right after going on-line.

to be continued
John,

That is a great idea, I wish all FD's could get a tour of those PV systems. I think that they would surprised at what they see.
Harold:
The tour came about during one of my visits to the job, and a discussion with the PM.

The PM, and the owner of the site were very acceptable to idea of the 'tour' and maintained the additional access tower stairs they used during the job for another 9 days. The tour included rooftop access thru the interior stairs, skuttle ladders as the tower stairs were removed after the tours.

BTW, the owner agreed to any 'requested' signage, if & when a decission is made.

Originally Posted by solar2011
Depends of what part of the country you are in and what kind of rebates and incentives are available. Joe Solar up in Alaska will probably have a harder time than someone in New Jersey, Arizona or California. Solar installatioins have steadily increased over the last few years but we can do better.

This industry is incentive driven (http://www.dsireusa.org/) and I think we need to get off that model eventually, especially before the money dries up. I don't think that is possible until the modules themselves really come down in price.

Ontario, Canada is enjoying a boom in solar because of a very lucrative microFiT program, the same type that Germany has had for 5 years. FiTs are a great way to encourage people to install solar as long as the program can sustain itself. Spain, for example, showed us how to run a FiT program, and how not to run one.



microFiT?
hmmmmmm, seems i need a little catch up SolarDude>

http://www.heshomeenergy.com/microfit/

at first sniff, it appears the gov has some serious rebates, and yaknow that isn't a bad thing , we've tax incentive programs, etc

my concern is when the gov starts imposing on people with unfunded mandates. which we're famous for

~S~
Originally Posted by harold endean
John,

That is a great idea, I wish all FD's could get a tour of those PV systems. I think that they would surprised at what they see.


oh pleeaaase Harold

the FD wouldn't know a non NEC compliant electrical install from a plate of spagetti
sparky:

sparky:

The resaoning for the FD 'tour' is to familiarize the crews with a large PV install, and actually 'seeing' what is on the roof.

As to NEC compliance and pasta...you're probably 99% right on.

The FD's only concern is usually "how do we turn this off"?

I do think making them familiar with disconnects and places that are potentially hazardous is worth doing. They might even be able to help the installer come up with useful signs and notices. It could save you some additional damage in a recoverable fire.
Training? well, i'm still tryin' to get the FD here to turn off ignition keys at rollovers

point of frustration for me fella's ,they get the 'ol moth / flame effect, drown it all and ask q's later


~S~
Sparky,


Yeah, you're right. They wouldn't know the difference, but if they can see where to not put water on, maybe that would help them. I heard of someone from a FD that took great pleasure in shooting water on the High Voltage towers to see the sparks it caused. I don't know if he is still alive today.
The main reasoning was the concerns for the safety of the fire crews!

well yes & yes guys. i do agree, i'm just a tad jaded by my history i guess

~S~
I can see it come down the line that panels will require a remote switch to either open each string or short them out. Shorting them out maybe the most economical way.

My strings typically run 70-100 volts, more then enough to kill you dead. I learned that you can short them out pending on their output. When I hook them up, I'll short the previous panel in the string when making the connections which avoids shocks and sparks.

This concept could be applied to "shut off" the panels for emergencies in theory meaning still higher costs but a means to shut them off
I agree on the remote or at least integral contactor within the module itself being a good idea for the future, but for now there is no way to shut off production as long as the sun is shining, short of covering the modules.

Shorting them only works if it's done at or within the modules themselves, otherwise the circuit is still 'hot' between the shorting device and the modules, so a fireman with a hose on the roof is still at risk should his spray make contact with a circuit.

A typical commercial string is between 550-600V and 7-11A and from my experiences with numerous FD's that I've dealt with, short of a life saving quest, they are content to fight a fire on a structure with PV from as far away as possible. They still want all of their access requirements met though.....

If you're using the manufacturer provided connectors for module stringing why are you shorting them when making connections, or better yet, how can you short a panel without making a connection to one of the leads?
Posted By: KJay Re: RENEWABLE ENERGY: YOUR causes for concern? - 08/23/11 01:38 PM
I just read an article the G-Biz news letter which hits on this topic. It seems the entire solar industry is highly dependent on worldwide Government subsidies. Now that these subsidies are drying up in several European countries, some manufacturers have begun to close their doors and the solar industry itself may continue to shrink substantially over the next few years.
I can’t help thinking that the something is in the air for the ethanol producers when and if corn subsidies begin to go away due to Uncle Sam’s teat running dry.

Industry Week Article
It's not economicaly viable at this point in the technology.
I'm not at all surprised that these folks are having an extra-tough time competing on a level playing field.

I've always said that 'subsidies' are a way to entice you to make the wrong decision.
I'll go along with that. Here, 'green' energy was subsidised by our Gummint direct to the buyer with a 50% tax rebate, all based on the global warming scam. Even if you were so poor you paid no tax, they still gave you up to 50% off capital costs, with a check in the mail, as long as a pro fitted the kit. [Job massaging buys votes.]

Result? The price of kit like pv or geo, [and noticeably for me, with one eye over the Channel], 'green flame' spec. woodburning stoves almost doubled in price. Effectively, the vendors grabbed most of the subsidy. The Gummint was taken aback when vast swathes of the vox-pop fell for it and is now strapped for cash. The rebates dropped away, along with sales, and are now 20% and expected to vanish next year altogether. If Gummints offered no props, only stuff that actually works would get marketed. Did Gates or Jobs need a subsidy to grow businesses so big in 25 years they could pay off the US national debt with their spare cash? Answers on a postage stamp.
Quote
Did Gates or Jobs need a subsidy to grow businesses so big in 25 years they could pay off the US national debt with their spare cash?


Not even close. You could take all the money from the Forbes 400 and not pay off the $14 trillion we owe. To put it in perspective, if you took every dime from the 10 richest Americans, it would run Medicare for about 145 days. Of course then there would be no more Microsoft, Berkshire Hathaway, Oracle, Koch, Wal-Mart or Bloomburg.

If you took every dime from the Forbes 400 it would not pay off the debt.

These are scary numbers most people can't comprehend. You are right when you say we really can't afford to pour money into technologies that do not make economic sense. Maybe without all of these subsidies there would be more incentive to make cheaper technology.
Everyone is spinning the story about a German city that is making 300% of the power it needs from a massive solar plant and actually making $5 million a year from the excess. What they don't say is they paid $4 billion for the system. Payback period ... 700 years.

Those numbers are WAY off!

The largest system in Germany couldn't have cost 1/8 of that number and no one builds a commercial system that doesn't have a payback period of less than 15 years, most are 10 years or less.

PV Module cost is very rapidly approaching $1/watt and the BOS is the big problem now. Many of the small companies are folding, but the biggest are just getting bigger and some are posting record gains and a few of the silicon suppliers are sold out till 2013-2015.

The industry is leaning more towards utility scale plants instead of resi scale. The GW scale arrays in planning and construction right now in California dwarf the largest European arrays and are being installed at substantially lower $/W numbers.

There's a LOT of PV hype (good and bad) and very little of it is really true, at least in the context in which it is hyped.

It won't be, but a few years before subsidies are no longer needed, but without them the industry would have never got to where it is today.
As the man says, I only know what I read.
I didn't see anything in here referring to the numbers you posted though.

Interesting that this community is doing almost all of this without government subsidies too. Looks to me like they invested wisely.

http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/002409.html
I can't find the article. When I get some time I will look again
Greg, I was not suggesting for a millisecond that Apple Inc pay of anyones' debts, let alone a Govermment's ones, merely that commercially viable businesses don't need vast public handouts from hard-pressed taxpayers to make them 'profitable', based on scare-mongering doomist's wild guesses. My fellow countrymen in the UK are now working for the Government till well into July before a penny goes in their pockets. Nor for that matter do viable countries, but that's just in IMHO. Even so, Apple has over US$76 billion in cash and probably double that in short term liquidisable assets, quite apart from its other business assets and intellectual rights which dwarf those sums. All this from a company that did not even exist till 1974. I know we don't do politics,so I'll shut up, but perhaps Steve or Bill should stand for President!?

Apple wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the government buying their basement priced crap for decades so our kids could be brainwashed into thinking they're the best thing since sliced bread.

Originally Posted by ghost307
It's not economicaly viable at this point in the technology.
I'm not at all surprised that these folks are having an extra-tough time competing on a level playing field.

I've always said that 'subsidies' are a way to entice you to make the wrong decision.


please take a short cruise through this> ( da*ned if i can get the link to work!)


http://www.bootsontheroof.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32:requirements-for-solar-installation-a-incentives-by-state&catid=14&Itemid=65









this is what i'm competing with btw>

Licensing (PV)

•Currently, the State of Vermont does not offer or require a specific license for installing PV. Renewable Energy Vermont and other industry leaders have proposed the creation of a Renewable Energy Specialty (S) license which would be required for the electrical portion of a PV installation which includes the wiring from the panels up to and including the AC interconnection


more from the IAEI>

http://www.iaei.org/magazine/2008/0...s-for-solar-energy-system-installations/

[b]Certification Program[/b]The North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP) offers an independent certification for PV system installers; however, it is not a governmental license or endorsement to engage in trade practice or contracting.

3 Candidates for this certification qualify based on documented PV systems installation experience and training, must pass a 4-hour 60-question examination, sign a code of ethics, and maintain practice and continuing education for re-certification every three years. A job task analysis for PV installations has been developed by NABCEP, and is the basis for the certification program and examination content.


While intended as a voluntary, value-added credential, NABCEP certification is becoming increasingly important to participate in this industry. For example, Maine and Ohio both require NABCEP certification to become eligible for state rebate funds*, and Utah requires the certification to qualify for their solar contractor license. Numerous specifications are now requiring the bidder to retain or employ a NABCEP-certified individual on the project. However, not all NABCEP certificants are legally licensed and entitled to pull permits and engage in construction contracting. Many are architects, engineers, educators, salespersons, journeypersons or others who may be integrally involved with PV projects, and may work with or for contractors or integrators, but are not contractors themselves.


* as is Vermont btw

of course i may stand corrected , i.e.- level playing field, when someone points out the 12,000 hours as prerequisite, that WE all did...

~S~
~s~:

Your attempted link, and my laptop protection watchdog......no go, amigo.

That said, here in the Garden state (NJ) licensed electrical contractors are required for PV installs, panels to grid tie. Racking can be done by 'others'.

That said, enterprising people have worked around the rules, but nothing is perfect.

Time for a little google...
`s~:
I got to the 'home' page whick is looking for contact info in order to proceed further. I really don't care to dump my info into something that the birddog said could be tainted. What I saw gives me the feeling of a $$$ course with a hint of 'unemployement' assistance?

Perhaps it may be time for the great state of Vermont to look into the 'Jersey' way?
[q=HotLine1]~s~:

Quote
Your attempted link, and my laptop protection watchdog......no go, amigo.


ah!, another green machine plot!

Quote
That said, here in the Garden state (NJ) licensed electrical contractors are required for PV installs, panels to grid tie. Racking can be done by 'others'.


kudo's to NJ, hopefully God spared them today's quake on that note!

Quote
That said, enterprising people have worked around the rules, but nothing is perfect.


sure, like the buncha old hippies that infiltrated VT legislature, bloody do-gooders all off to save the planet

Quote
Time for a little google...


please so, i'm obviously google challeged this evening HotOne

~S~
~s~:
Since you asked....we felt the quake at the office, building 'shook' on the second floor...we went outside for a bit..then...back in after a 'no damage visable' call from the building inspector.

I got an Email from my ex and she said it shook some things off shelves and popped some cabinet doors open but no real damage (southern Md)
No GE Mark 5's offended then fellas?

~S~
OK, last quke comment....

Oyster Creek, Lacey Twp., NJ; Oldest operational reactor in the US, sorta like the same design as the units in Japan....up & running. It may have went into shutdown at 2:00, but it's up & running!

Posted By: KJay Re: RENEWABLE ENERGY: YOUR causes for concern? - 08/31/11 09:31 PM
Like the song says... Another one bites the dust.

It looks like the really good news is that this venture only cost U.S. tax payers a little over a half-billion in stimulus funds to temporarily prop up this company and the 1000 employees that are now out of work.

Solar Bankruptcy
Another sad case of..."we used to make what here in the US"!!!

Maybe it's time for a "Made in the USA" drive.

Please guys, no politics.
Posted By: Tesla Re: RENEWABLE ENERGY: YOUR causes for concern? - 09/01/11 03:41 AM
Hotline...

I'm very much in favor of PV -- if done right.

I'm upset that this technology has been made political -- by the President.

But it's not just him.

Our Congress has decided to jump in with both feet WRT all matters electrical.

Like the crazy idea of eliminating the original Edison bulb.

There are many, many situations where the Edison bulb is a hands down winner -- starting with cold locations and intermittent use.

-----

Good electrical design can't be initiated in Washington DC. It's best left to EEs, ECs and J-men.

-----

I also am disturbed to see PV arrays mounted atop residences. It's a Science Fiction theme. But such a location is uneconomic -- forever.

Let's start with the roof falls typical of roofing contractors: their Workman's Comp Insurance is a fright. It can't be much different for PV installers. Does anyone think it through?

Next, the orientation of most homes ( mine ) is entirely contrary to effective PV collection. In my neighborhood the VAST majority of homes are entirely mis-oriented for PVs atop their roofs. HALF of the day is lost!

-----

PVs should be operated by experts -- and located in prime collection zones -- like Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and West Texas. These spots are enough to power the ENTIRE country -- with enough units!

Placing PVs in northern states with lousy weather is a complete loser on the economics.

Next, clouds are pure trouble for PV collection. Again, we need to use the dry desert conditions to get stability in collection.

Lastly, PV makes far more sense if it is used to boot up the hydrogen economy. Hydrogen solves the storage problem --and is massively useful in upgrading coal and heavy oil into viable motor fuels.

The President's heart is in the right place -- but his policies are adrift. Lowest cost/ most efficient is what can work. Nothing he says or does indicates to me that cost control is any part of his being.

I met him, in Hawaii, in 1983. He was home visiting his Grandmother. She lived on the 16th, penthouse floor in my condo. I lived directly below -- the 15th floor.

I found him most impressive -- even though his Grandmother was doing ALL of the talking.

Even in 1983 I figured he'd be HUGE in politics or acting. It was THAT obvious. He just had the look.

BTW, he's in a 1980's rock video, too. Dang, I wish I could find the Utube link.

In it you can see what I saw in 1983.

------

As for PV manufacturers going under -- it's happening in China, too.

This is what happened in autos a century ago.

It's what happened to floppy discs in the mid 80s.

It's called brutal competition.

-----

BTW, there is an outfit that is attempting to PRINT solar collectors on a web-press.

( Web-presses print newspapers and magazines -- google web press. )

When that happens conventional notions of PV collection will be smoked into oblivion. Imagine: a collective surface spewing out at 40 to 60 mph, and 12 feet wide!

Its already been demonstrated on a pilot basis. Tomorrow may be coming sooner than you think.

Such a cheap collector would make the hydrogen economy realistic. Obama is just too early -- he needs to give the engineers enough time.

I have been hearing about that solar collector since the Carter administration. When it comes, it will certainly be a game changer but it doesn't sound like it is a lot of jobs.

It would make energy cheaper and that is always a good thing.
I also think hydrogen is a boondoggle but maybe if the energy is too cheap to meter, it might be worth trying.
Originally Posted by Tesla
Like the crazy idea of eliminating the original Edison bulb.

There are many, many situations where the Edison bulb is a hands down winner -- starting with cold locations and intermittent use.


Fluorescent and LED can do all of that and better and using LESS energy. Sure it can be improved, but no one is going to until the CHEAP option (up front) is removed from the equation.

Originally Posted by Tesla
I also am disturbed to see PV arrays mounted atop residences. It's a Science Fiction theme. But such a location is uneconomic -- forever.

Let's start with the roof falls typical of roofing contractors: their Workman's Comp Insurance is a fright. It can't be much different for PV installers. Does anyone think it through?

Next, the orientation of most homes ( mine ) is entirely contrary to effective PV collection. In my neighborhood the VAST majority of homes are entirely mis-oriented for PVs atop their roofs. HALF of the day is lost!


BIPV is where everything will be in years to come, all residences will have some form of PV integrated into the roof, wall and windows, but for now the large scale utility arrays are the best/most cost effective.

Originally Posted by Tesla
PVs should be operated by experts -- and located in prime collection zones -- like Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and West Texas. These spots are enough to power the ENTIRE country -- with enough units!

Placing PVs in northern states with lousy weather is a complete loser on the economics.

Next, clouds are pure trouble for PV collection. Again, we need to use the dry desert conditions to get stability in collection.


Hot climates are definitely NOT good for PV, silicon handles it somewhat, but thin film is way to dependent on the ambient temp. The hotter is gets the lower the voltage produced and all hot climate arrays use a calculated balance of average temps to get their results, this usually means some clipping of the inverters in the winter mornings and afternoons and some mid-day clipping in the summer.

If the same array was located in a more moderate climate production would increase dramatically so somewhere between cold and hot climate zones is best.

Clouds are not the problem they once were, but dust and debris in dry desert type climates is a major draw on PV production so frequent cleanings, which is a further draw on production $$$ is needed.

Originally Posted by Tesla
BTW, there is an outfit that is attempting to PRINT solar collectors on a web-press.

( Web-presses print newspapers and magazines -- google web press. )

When that happens conventional notions of PV collection will be smoked into oblivion. Imagine: a collective surface spewing out at 40 to 60 mph, and 12 feet wide!

Its already been demonstrated on a pilot basis. Tomorrow may be coming sooner than you think.


Most of the new thin film CIGS technology I've seen is using ink-jet printer technology to print the CIGS or liquid silicon cells and the associated cell circuitry in a continuous assembly-line.

When that is perfected the cost per watt is going to make PV economical for just about anywhere, it's already approaching $1/watt.
Quote
When that is perfected the cost per watt is going to make PV economical for just about anywhere, it's already approaching $1/watt.


Is that price point sun to utility voltage cost, or just sun to DC bus cost?

That's module cost alone, no DC or BOS.

Currently the complete installed price is ranging between the low $4's to $8 installed. Some of the really BIG (100MW and larger) may be in the $3's/watt, but I doubt they'll advertise the actual numbers since that would cut into their profit. When you have 500,000 or more modules the economics of scale takes on a whole new meaning and the builders can practically dictate material prices.
We just installed a huge system and our modules (parts only) cost just under $12 per Watt.
Originally Posted by ghost307
We just installed a huge system and our modules (parts only) cost just under $12 per Watt.


Then your price was about $4/watt above the average for IL.

Define huge?

To me huge means 10MW or larger, but it may mean something entirely different to others.

http://openpv.nrel.gov/rankings

According to NREL's data the entire state of IL has 1.35MW installed (can that be right?).
That NREL data is full of loose stool.
I know of at least 12MW installed just in the Chicago area.
Originally Posted by ghost307
That NREL data is full of loose stool.
I know of at least 12MW installed just in the Chicago area.


I agree on that, but their $/W numbers are right on, in fact current Average $/W numbers should ALWAYS be lower than theirs since theirs are an average of all projects since they started tracking.

Florida numbers are off the chart, no wonder no one wants to do PV there..... I'm sure the data can be skewed since some projects have incomplete data, but I can't imagine what the $/W number(s) were for the projects that skewed it THAT badly.

Our numbers for 500kW to 1MW jobs have been falling anywhere between $4.75 and $6.50/Watt depending on the modules, inverters, DC scheme (mono or bipolar) and the local crew rates, some areas are absurd (compared to San Diego rates). Module rates are in freefall now with some as much as 30-40% lower $$ than a year ago.
Hi, I posted this on the general forum but perhaps it would be better to post it here.

I am hoping that you can help to resolve this issue.
Westinghouse Solar (formerly known as Akeena Solar) has been claiming for quite some time that it will be selling 200 Watt solar panels with built in grid connect inverter through Lowes.
CEO Barry Cinnamon claims that there is no need for any unnecessary paperwork....just take em home and plug em in.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/...ilable-at-lowes

http://www.westinghousesolar.com/index.php/do-it-yourself

Lowes don't actually have any yet and my humble opinion they never will.

Would NEC and NFPA be happy about the idea of hundreds of thousands of grid connect solar panels installed by Joe Public?

Interesting claims by Bazza Cinnamon here.... http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/guest-post-epitaph-for-solyndra/



Edited by Keef_Wivanef (09/05/11 12:51 AM)
I just did some quick calcs... I've been using solar at some of our remote sites. Romote as in very remote. One such system has 1500+ watt array, 6kw genset, 4000 watt inverter and a big battery bank. Estimated cost was staggering $50 per watt. The solar array alone will pay for the system will be about 20 years in fuel and transportation costs. Even though there's a generator in the system when called upon will run at maximum efficiency thus operation savings will bring that payback cost in around 10 years. These systems are used from beginning may through September. Peak sun months up here
And that was with out tax rebates and government subsidies or rebates
Originally Posted by Keef_Wivanef
Hi, I posted this on the general forum but perhaps it would be better to post it here.

I am hoping that you can help to resolve this issue.
Westinghouse Solar (formerly known as Akeena Solar) has been claiming for quite some time that it will be selling 200 Watt solar panels with built in grid connect inverter through Lowes.
CEO Barry Cinnamon claims that there is no need for any unnecessary paperwork....just take em home and plug em in.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/...ilable-at-lowes

http://www.westinghousesolar.com/index.php/do-it-yourself

Lowes don't actually have any yet and my humble opinion they never will.

Would NEC and NFPA be happy about the idea of hundreds of thousands of grid connect solar panels installed by Joe Public?

Interesting claims by Bazza Cinnamon here.... http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/guest-post-epitaph-for-solyndra/

Edited by Keef_Wivanef (09/05/11 12:51 AM)


As long as they're NRTL listed I don't think the NEC or NFPA could care less as long as they're installed per code.

These modules would actually be SAFER than conventional DC modules since the leads are dead as soon as you unplug them.

The problem I see is how do you regulate them, the POCO will not allow them to be connected to their grid without prior knowledge of the system type and size. They will even deny the right to connect if the local grid is already too saturated with other PV systems.
That gets back to "how do you stop them"?

I doubt anyone with a 175w collector or two is going to make enough difference in their electric bill to show up on the bill as a red flag. How will the PoCo catch them? This is just a plug and go "appliance" that is U/L listed.
It would be easy to argue that if the meter never actually ran backward you never fed the grid in any way at all. The net flow was always in.
Originally Posted by gfretwell
That gets back to "how do you stop them"?

I doubt anyone with a 175w collector or two is going to make enough difference in their electric bill to show up on the bill as a red flag. How will the PoCo catch them? This is just a plug and go "appliance" that is U/L listed.
It would be easy to argue that if the meter never actually ran backward you never fed the grid in any way at all. The net flow was always in.


Yeah I agree, but if they SEE them they'll raise the red flag, or they might take a cue from the prop tax/permit regulators are start reviewing googleearth aerials for clues as to who's got PV and who doesn't.

Once they're listed someone will start putting them up and continue adding modules as $$ permits until they ARE backfeeding the grid...
Strictly opinion here.

The units are so small in output that the utility probably won't care unless every house on the street completely replaced all of their daylight power consumption with solar generation.

Numbers: ASSUMPTIONS
1) Full size refrigerator: current draw is 5 Amps when compressor is running.
2) Refrigerator compressor runs 10 % duty cycle = 6 min / Hr.
3) Solar panel output is 200 W for 6 hours a day.

Refrigerator load averages 60 W per hour.

So, one panel will power 3 refigerators for 8 hours or one refrigerator for 24 hours. If EVERY customer plugged in one solar panel to their house, it would be the same as every customer removing there refrigerator from the utility grid. Isn't what they have been asking us to do already?

Plus the odds of EVERY customer installing a panel is a bit extreme.

Agreed, but most of the eastern US grid is lacking reverse flow abilities in their protective relay design and is in danger of a cascading collapse when PV saturation reaches levels that would allow a backfeed of the grid, say on weekends when most commercial and industrial loads are shuttered.

There's been a couple of studies on this which have led to highly detailed monitoring of all grid connected PV systems in some areas and the denial of connection in some.

Just like older GFI relays in older distribution gear the utility relays are burned out by a reverse power feed and are then rendered useless and this will generally not be noticed until an overload or fault event occurs that then starts popping OCP devices upstream.
They are pushing grid tie systems with both hands here in Florida (government and PoCo).
They must have some kind of protection from backfeed problems. In real life I doubt solar backfeed will ever be seen back at the substation unless they sell a buttload of them. A kiloton or more of AC compressors humming all day will pretty much guarantee all of that juice is used.

It's mostly a northeast issue and they're attempting to make equipment upgrades as time and $$ permits, but the entire grid is designed this way, so it will take a considerable amount of time to correct.

The problem is not necessarily confined to substations, for example, lets say the utility equipment at the street is 12kV and the utility protection relays there fail when the warehouse complex it feeds is shut down on the weekend and the 1MW roof mounted PV array backfeeds the grid, then on Monday there's a fault in the U/G 12kV feed to the building and the OCP device at the street fails to open because it can't sense the fault, this would mean the next in line OCP device should open, but it doesn't, and so on.....

Several of the large roof arrays we've done have required the replacement of the buildings main 2500-4000 amp breaker(s) and GFI protection because the GFI relays would burn up if backfed, the breakers themselves were rated for backfeed, but not the older GFI units. That can get VERY pricey very quickly, especially if it wasn't taken into consideration when the job was bid.

Several jurisdictions here have required a letter from the manufacturer stating that not only is the breaker listed for reverse feed, but so it the GFI protection associated with it.

There's no way to know how many installations around the country have burnt up GFI protection since you won't know until an event occurs.

For this reason we make every effort to tap the PV feed in ahead of the main unless that is economically or logistically unfeasible because of space or feeder length issues.
So your experience is with the larger arrays. Do you feel that residential neighborhoods do or will suffer from the same problems?
Originally Posted by LarryC
So your experience is with the larger arrays. Do you feel that residential neighborhoods do or will suffer from the same problems?


Yes, most of the arrays I've designed were 500kW and larger and we don't do resi work.

From what I've seen and heard from the resi side though, the problems only get worse with resi work, there are loopholes around using licensed electricians for PV and many are abusing them (the loopholes, in case any of you think the electricians are being abused....).

There are a LOT of hacks doing resi PV work and they're giving the sector a poor image. How many times have you seen a roof with modules on two, three or even four sides of a roof? There are ways to optimize arrays in such situations (except the dreaded north side, which I have seen more than once now), but most of the bad installs predate string optimizers or don't include them.

I see a lot of 5kW DC arrays going through 5kW inverters when they should be going through 4kW inverters, the installer doesn't care, he gets paid either way, but it's a waste of the owner's and govt's money.

Lots of violations and bad design practice in commercial arrays too, one of the most prominent that I've seen is the use of a single 200 amp, 3 pole disconnect to disconnect three 200 amp combiner boxes, there are arrays all across the country like that, but there's not a single disconnect anywhere that's rated/listed to do that.

But back on topic, most utility grids can only handle so much PV contribution, too much and grid stability may be affected so too much resi PV can effect the grid and even a little can if there's a large PV array within the same grid block.

I am by no means an expert, but we have encountered just about every issue known dealing with all of the POCOs we've dealt with in Calif and some of them are clueless, blind leading the blind types that will repeat ridiculous regulations verbatim, but have no idea what any of it means or how it works so they can't form an opinion of their own. Luckily the worst offenders have created their own PV department and they are not involved in other POCO/Public interactions and as such they can't spread their infectious stupidity. Sorry, rant off....
Vindiceptor:

I am not familiar with the industrial commercial GFI units main breaker controls burning up when they were backfed. Can you explain to me what they are and how this happens?

Thanks.
Originally Posted by LarryC
Vindiceptor:

I am not familiar with the industrial commercial GFI units main breaker controls burning up when they were backfed. Can you explain to me what they are and how this happens?

Thanks.


This should explain the issue:

http://www.yosemiteiaei.org/pdfs/backfeed-white-paper.pdf
I don't think the breaker in a grid tied system is truly "backfed" since the utility has to be present on the "line" side for the inverter to put out. (which will power the breaker circuitry).
I agree if you are truly backfeeding, like on a generator inlet, you will smoke them but that is not what is happening on a grid tie inverter.
The idea that net current is flowing one way or the other is meaningless since the current switches direction every 8MS anyway. The CT only makes sure they balance.
Vindiceptor,

Thank you for the link. Useful information.
Originally Posted by gfretwell
I don't think the breaker in a grid tied system is truly "backfed" since the utility has to be present on the "line" side for the inverter to put out. (which will power the breaker circuitry).
I agree if you are truly backfeeding, like on a generator inlet, you will smoke them but that is not what is happening on a grid tie inverter.
The idea that net current is flowing one way or the other is meaningless since the current switches direction every 8MS anyway. The CT only makes sure they balance.


You are kidding right?
Where am I wrong? Are you saying the grid on the line side will not provide power to the circuitry (the issue in the SqD white paper)

They never mentioned the direction of net current flow.

Every manufacturer is different and the link was only meant to explain why some GFI breaker protection can fail others can fail for similar reasons, but each is manufacturer specific.

We did 50-75kW arrays on three identical buildings in a business park and one of them had a 1600A GFI main that the manufacturer wouldn't guarantee in a backfeed. They all had the same model breaker, but one of them had a different GFI trip unit.

The AHJ in that area was anal about tapping existing gear and required third party recertification so we had to weigh the cost of that VS replacing the breaker. We wound up tapping ahead of the main and having it recertified as that was quite a bit cheaper than replacing then main in that case.

We were lucky on that building as the other two had such crowded electric rooms that we couldn't have tapped (within code distance) ahead on the mains.

We have had another case where we couldn't make the tap length 25' or less and the AHJ was OK with it.

So far we haven't encountered a large fused main with GFI protection and that may be entail an entirely different GFI scheme.
From reading the white paper, it sounds like they are saying the circuit breaker could open, the control circuit is not powered but somehow the coil remains powered and burns up.


In a grid tie situation using grid clocked inverters there is no situation where the line side voltage will be significantly lower than the load side voltage and you will not have a situation wnere the control circuitry of the XFCI is not properly powered .

This is not what we normally consider back feeding where the line side of the breaker remains hot with the breaker open.
Originally Posted by gfretwell
From reading the white paper, it sounds like they are saying the circuit breaker could open, the control circuit is not powered but somehow the coil remains powered and burns up.


Yes and I have been told it can happen in a fraction of a second.

Originally Posted by gfretwell
In a grid tie situation using grid clocked inverters there is no situation where the line side voltage will be significantly lower than the load side voltage and you will not have a situation wnere the control circuitry of the XFCI is not properly powered .


I have seen variations of several volts and amps in meters on both sides of the POCC, the inverters are not always perfectly aligned

Originally Posted by gfretwell
This is not what we normally consider back feeding where the line side of the breaker remains hot with the breaker open.


The GFCI protection only needs work as designed once and then it may be incapable of preventing utility fault from passing through it the possibility. See NEC-2008 690.64(B)(3) and NEC 2011 705.12(D)(3).

Newer breakers (made within the last 10-15 years) with integral and/or add-on GFCI devices should be listed for reverse feed applications, but few manufacturers indicate that specifically as it relates to the GFCI function, anything older and you may want to get written documentation from the manufacturer.

Lastly, we routinely combine the output from several large inverters at a distribution board with a GFCI main feeding back to the POCC, in that situation the line side is towards the inverters, should a fault occur between the inverters and said GFCI the GFCI protection may be burned up after the breaker is opened by the utility backfeeding the load side if the breaker and GFCI protection were not listed and tested for reverse feed applications.

My mentioning this to begin with was more a precautionary statement since we have dealt with it and I know of a couple others out here that have as well. Replacing a large GFI breaker can make a medium project significantly less profitable or put it in the red for small projects if you're going to eat the cost because of what you didn't know to look out for.

See page 5 of the following link:

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/764900-aoqwfv/webviewable/764900.pdf

From the PDF
Quote

It was found that many of the trip circuits in tripped
circuit breaker ground-fauit protection devices would be
destroyed in 2-3 seconds of run-on by an inverter.


I suppose it all gets back to how good the anti islanding circuits are in the inverter.
© ECN Electrical Forums