What's your opinion on + 4kW peak?

[ktech]

Just wondering on what everyones opinion is on installing more than 4kW (peak) is. We have for quite a long time installed more than 4kW on the roof. This is based on the fact that the inverter is limited to G83 and therefore will not exceed the 16A per phase limit but makes it all the more possible for acheive nearer 4kW at good times of the year and increase winter production.

My interest came again when I noticed that 'Appolo Solar' (Wakefield) said that the reason they did not install 250W panels was that these are subject to a -0 +5% tolerance and therefore a 250W x 16 panel array would exceed the limit and therefore be subject to the +4kW tariff. Rubish in my opinion but wondered what you thought?

We did come across this in the December rush when we got offered a batch of 255W LG panels and questioned the +4kW limit (in terms of 16 panels). We got forwarded an email from the EST stating that this was not a problem. Personally I have 5.4 kWp installed that is declared as 3.68kWp (West and East facing roof, 4kWp West 1.4kWp East - never exceeds 4kw output but benefits from morning and afternoon irradiance).

 

[Earthstore]

There has been a thread on this a while ago, and my take on this is check with your DNO and FIT provider if they will except DNC (declared net capacity) and not TIC (total installed capacity), which some believe it is the panels only, yet others except that the inverter is part of the system, so if G83 makes the TIC 3.68KW.
It appears to be a very grey area, and there seems to be different opinions on this.
But this is how I see it.
I hope this helps.

 

[ktech]

Followingour conversation this afternoon please see below information:

‘The‘cut-off’ output for an array is 3.68KW through the inverter. There are lossesthrough the DC cable and inverter so as long as the residual energy at thispoint is no more than 3.68KW it is G83 compliant and will get the 43.3p. Belowis an earlier response I got to a similar query:

Too many people still think that the feed-in tariff boundariesrelate to the peak DC rating of the panels. If you read into the definitions,and realise that in other contexts e.g. G83/G59 connections terms, the SSEGunit specifically refers to the inverter, not the panels, and as the meter ismeasuring the AC output, and the payments are made based on the AC output, thenit makes sense it refers to the peak AC output.

In all other circumstances TIC (total installed capacity) and DNC(declared net capacity) also refer to the AC output. I think the confusionarose because PV systems sizes are usually talked about in terms of their peakDC rating (e.g. 4kWp), this is for ease of comparison. But setting the FITboundaries on this basis wouldn’t make any sense as everything else is basedaround the maximum AC output of the inverter.

So, 4.5kWp (or up to 5kWp with unfavourable orientation) wouldstill be eligible for the 43.3p rate, as long as the inverter is limited to3680W AC.


Cheers
Malcolm

Malcolm Potter
Project Manager
tadea

 

[Gavin A]

I'm currently involved in a dispute with certain parties over this. can't really say more in public though, but will try to post something in the private place later this week or next about it... put it this way though, I've just agreed to cough up for a lawyer to check over our interpretation of the legislation on this, and providing they agree with us then I'm not planning to back down on it.

 

[ktech]

As previously stated we quite often install +4kW systems and declare at 3.68 so how come you have had to go to the lawyers? Surely once declared that is it job done?

 

[ktech]

I think that the declared capacity is what is important not only to the DNO but for FiT as this is the output (AC) that would not be exceded. Apart from the Solar PV Police (if they even exist) why would this be a problem?

 

[Gavin A]

As previously stated we quite often install +4kW systems and declare at 3.68 so how come you have had to go to the lawyers? Surely once declared that is it job done?

can't really go into it on the public forum, but let's just say that the energy company on one installation ain't playing ball, and neither is anyone else.

If you could possibly forward me the energy saving trust email you mention though I'd be much obliged.

<engage stealth mode>

 

[ktech]

Hi, The email I got forwarded from Zenex originates from the TADEA Ltd on behalf of the Energy Saving Trust.

From: Mary Flynn [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 20 October 2011 17:34
To: Ben Harrison
Subject: Array size and FIT

DearBen,

Followingour conversation this afternoon please see below information:

‘The‘cut-off’ output for an array is 3.68KW through the inverter. There are lossesthrough the DC cable and inverter so as long as the residual energy at thispoint is no more than 3.68KW it is G83 compliant and will get the 43.3p. Belowis an earlier response I got to a similar query:

Too many people still think that the feed-in tariff boundariesrelate to the peak DC rating of the panels. If you read into the definitions,and realise that in other contexts e.g. G83/G59 connections terms, the SSEGunit specifically refers to the inverter, not the panels, and as the meter ismeasuring the AC output, and the payments are made based on the AC output, thenit makes sense it refers to the peak AC output.

In all other circumstances TIC (total installed capacity) and DNC(declared net capacity) also refer to the AC output. I think the confusionarose because PV systems sizes are usually talked about in terms of their peakDC rating (e.g. 4kWp), this is for ease of comparison. But setting the FITboundaries on this basis wouldn’t make any sense as everything else is basedaround the maximum AC output of the inverter.

So, 4.5kWp (or up to 5kWp with unfavourable orientation) wouldstill be eligible for the 43.3p rate, as long as the inverter is limited to3680W AC.


Cheers
Malcolm

Malcolm Potter
Project Manager
tadea
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 01642373028 Fax: 01642 564221 Web: www.tadea.com

Want to save a packet by doing even more?Then call the Energy Saving Trust advice centre on 0800 512 012.

The Energy SavingTrust advice centre North East is managed by TADEA Ltd on behalf of the EnergySaving Trust. TADEA Ltd is a company limited by guarantee registered withcompany number 04452865 in England and Wales.TADEA Ltd registered office is 18bManor Way, Belasis Hall Technology Park, Billingham TS23 4HN.

 

[ktech]

We have taken from this to offer either a 4kW install or a 'Solar MAX' offering of a +4kW install (upto 4.5kW or 11kW for 10kW declared systems). This gives us the edge on many installers and helps seal the deal on occasions.

 

[Earthstore]

I spoke to DECC on this very matter (twice), and they insisted that TIC is the panels, not the Inverter, and if you read through some of their very complex documents, it states that it is what the system can produce less any losses.
As this is generic for all types of generation, ie anerobic digesters use some power to produce their maximum output the TIC would be the maximum power, and the DNC is what is produced after losses.
In the documents that I read (well until I got bored) none of them stated DC or AC, just KW.
As I stated, a very grey area, and if I was nuetral, there is an argument for either.
It may well depend on who can prove whether one rule over rides another.
Why cann't this damn industry be black or white???

 

[nowty]

I have read many threads on this and I have read the official definitions of DNC and TIC. My own opinion is the panels are irrelevant as the suns output in the UK can get to well over the standard 1000 w/m3 at times and some panels which are MCS compliant have net positive tolerances, some of 5 or even 10%. Also the defenition talks about output (with unlimited renwable source being available) which can surely only be the AC output from the inverter.

Various people have contacted DECC, DNO’s and FIT providers all whom have given different interpretations. It also seems that depending on who you talk with in all these organisations you can also get a different answer from the same organisation.

The only argument I can see for the panels being relevant is how DECC came up with the FIT rates in the first place based upon their targeted rates of return. Their consultation docs speak about ranges of kw/hrs per kw installed, circa 850 in favourable locations. Of course if you look at PVOUTPUT you can clearly see some people near the south coast of England (including myself) are generating over 1000 per kw installed. If you then put up 5kw of panels then even a 3.6kw limited system is going to produce 5000+ units a year therefore pushing the envelope up to and over 1250 per kw installed (TIC definition of 4kw not the actual 5kw you have on the roof). Which I am sure DECC won’t like as it burns up the FIT subsidy faster than they calculated.

But if the total yield is DECCs argument, then what about trackers ?, they produce circa 20% more than a fixed installation so whats the difference between having a 4kw tracker or a 5kw fixed installation ? They are both likely to yield roughly the same yearly total with the same 3.6kw compliant inverter.

I also belive that in the near future we will see even more complexity as systems could be designed with batteries or super capacitors to soak up excess DC power (over 4kw) and release to the inverter as a cloud passes to keep up the max TIC ouptut of the system.

 

[SolarCity]

Good luck with that Gavin. I think the case is rock solid.

DNC and TIC as far as PV is concerned is more or less the same. It refers to the maximum capacity at which an Eligible Installation could be operated for a sustained period without causing damage to it.

If you're inverter is capped at 16A then it is operating at a maximum of 16A and 16A must therefore be the TIC.

 

[BruceB]

I support the view that for simple solar PV where kWp installed is greater than nominal output of the inverter then TIC = DNC = inverter output. I am confident in my interpretation of the legislation as it stands.

However it is not a done deal. If the DECC, the regulator and the industry were to 'gang up' and interpret it a different way then it could take a court case or two to change their mind, which for a customer or contractor is an expensive and uncertain business. And then the Government could change or 'clarify' the legislation. From DECC's and the industry's perspective I can certainly see advantages to them of pushing through the kWp interpretation. I have not researched what alternative complaint/arbitration routes surround the FIT legislation but there may be some, rather than rushing to the courts.

Regards
Bruce

 

[SRE]

EST aren't the regulators and while they do good work they aren't the people who determine the output. Just because one of their subcontractors (which is what tadea is) says that this is correct doesn't mean it is. Unless you hear it from the horses mouth ie Ofgem/Decc then I wouldn't take anything as given.

 

[methley]

Interesting discussion. However, if the TIC is taken as the system (inverter output) what happens in the scenario where you have installed 4kw of modules on a G83 inverter, and then want to add more modules, keeping the G83 inverter? What info do you give to your FIT provider? Would you even bother notifying them? They will see the system output increase over the year so they will notice something has changed, and as they only see Kwh figures from your TGM (not peak outputs) from their point of view the capacity of your install has gone up...

Edit: the MCS cert contains an estimated annual generation figure which will not longer be true...