Posted by old dirtbeard on March 16, 2009, 1:14 am
Just an informational post...
I installed 30 Kyocera KC200GT (200W) panels and a SMA SB6000U (6kW)
inverter two years ago. To date we have generated 19,360 kWh in 24 months.
We are located near the coast in Southern California. I am very pleased with
The first summer we had problems with the system dropping off-line when the
grid voltage momentarily dropped below 210VAC when our 5 ton HVAC unit
kicked in (190 LR amps). I asked Edison to install an additional transformer
on our utility pole, which they did. Since then we have had no problems.
We have generated small surpluses both years and could not be happier with
the system. I often see 4.5-5.5 kW output during cool bright days. With some
cloud edge effect, I have seen over 6kW output on the inverter. During the
midday hours, we can make five homes or more "disappear" from the grid.
Because we were running 200% over baseline on Edison's tiered billing
structure, we should break even on the purchase price of the system in five
more years (seven years from date of install).
If someone is only running at a 12 cent per kWh baseline, then it probably
would take 18 years or more to break even in CA without large incentives (we
also were fortunate to purchase when some very significant California
incentives were in place).
This is one of the best interventions I have done to our home. I would do it
again in a heartbeat.
Posted by Eeyore on March 16, 2009, 3:58 am
old dirtbeard wrote:
You mean other peoples' money.
Posted by Norman Webb on March 17, 2009, 11:32 pm
I am just about to install a 2500W grid tie with 1000w of panels( allows
future expansion) In perth Western Australia.
I have done this because we get a rebate on this system which halves the
price to $000, our power tariffs are going to increase dramatically in the
next few years and unless someone discovers 'free" energy I can see costs
continually going up.
Is there a link to a definitive comparison study of adding an additional
centralised power station compared to supplementing traditional base load
power stations with grid tie solar or wind power?
I've tried googling without success.
It appears to me that there are so many variables and assumptions that it
would be difficult to do.
( a lot like global warming when they can't forecast the weather two weeks
forward, let alone 20 years).
As an example
oil fired is low capital cost, high running cost whereas solar is high
capital cost, low running cost.
Oil fired depends on cost of fuel into the future, solar depends on cost of
Posted by Mel on March 24, 2009, 3:26 pm
Norman Webb a crit :
There is no "definitive" comparison study for the simple reason that
what is best in one climate related to a particular temporal load range =
will not be best in another location.
To give you an example:
In Perth, the major loads are likely to be around 2pm weekdays in
February (workday AC loads...) but at Thredbo or Mt Buller the peak
loads are probably when the snow canons are firing up on winter holiday
weekends (hmm, that's if their snow canons run on the grid...). anyway,
you get my point, in Perth PV is great for reducing peak loads and makes =
a lot of sense as a tool to flatten the grids temporal load curve. But
pretty useless in places where peak loads are at mid-winter dawn.
If you take out all the environmental factors, nuclear power makes sense =
in place where you have a stable year round day / night electricity
demand, but not in places where there is a very high day / night or
summer / winter variation in demand.
Doesn't really answer your question... but you could try seeing if
Western Power Perth has any publicly available studies on projected
shifts in temporal load with population and climate change.
Posted by Mauried on March 25, 2009, 4:44 am
On the Eastern side of Australia thats connected by the National
Electriciy grid maximum load occurs twice daily between around 7 AM
and 10 AM , and between 4 PM to around 8 PM.
Load graphs are available from Nemmcos Web Site.
Minimum load is round 4 AM in the mornings.