MtDon,  I see the Outback inverter has a generator connection. Is it a hard wired or plug in type connection? Does this also supply a/c power to the house, as well as equalize the battery bank? 


Thanks Shawn.

Quote from: Shawn B on August 14, 2010, 09:44:39 AM
MtDon,  I see the Outback inverter has a generator connection. Is it a hard wired or plug in type connection? Does this also supply a/c power to the house, as well as equalize the battery bank? 
Thanks Shawn.

The connection for the generator inputs at the inverter/charger is hard wired. I use a locking three prong plug to connect at the generator end to make it simple to disconnect if and when I want to move the generator. After all it is a portable generator. The generator also has its own ground rod.

The AC input at the inverter/charger is a pass through system. When AC input is applied to the inverter that causes the charger section of the inverter/charger to kick in and apply DC power to the batteries. Like the FM charge controller the inverter/charger can be programmed for different charge rates; bulk, absorb and float. There is also a manually activated equalization cycle.

AC input at the inverter/charger also causes the cabin AC requirements to be drawn from the generator rather than the batteries.

Thanks Don...That was exactly what I wanted to know. That Outback system has quite a few features.

Did some searching but did not find any definitive answers, can you deduct 30% of the cost of a off-grid solar power system from your taxes?  Or is this only for grid tied systems?

Regarding getting a 30% federal tax rebate on off grid solar & wind systems:

Found this on the Federal Form 5695 (2009) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5695.pdf

"Qualified solar electric property costs. Qualified solar electric
property costs are costs for property that uses solar energy to generate
electricity for use in your home located in the United States. This
includes costs relating to a solar panel or other property installed as a
roof or a portion of a roof. The home does not have to be your main
home" 

From this it appears we can claim 30% of materials and labor cost our taxes even on off-gird and vacation homes.

Yep.

Note that with most things done by owner-builder your own labor costs do not count; only labor costs paid to someone else. 

Credits start at the PV panels or wind generator and stop after the inverter though. The balance of the wiring, etc after the inverter is just like a regular home connected to commercial grid system.

Also if you are going this route check into your state rules. Some states, like NM, do not tax the purchase of the alternative energy equipment or contracted labor. However, you need to know how to make that work for you when dealing with companies that are not alternative energy specialists.

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?State=US&ee=1&re=1

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US37F&re=1&ee=1

Quote
They've done me well but for the $440 why not buy a 200 watt panel?  I bought 3 205 watt panels for $364ea a month ago.

Oljarhead,

I'm leaning towards bigger panels as you suggested. What 205 watt panels did you buy, how much was shipping?

Thank you,

Jerry

I have had my 2kw ProSine inverter and 4 -GC batteries running well for 2 years charging them with a generator.  Now I want to make the next move to solar charging.

Here is what I'm looking at:

2 - Sun 190 watt PV B grade panels with a max power voltage to 26.7V $338ea.
http://sunelec.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=5&products_id=816

1- Outback FM-60 Charge controller $508
http://sunelec.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=22&products_id=36

Outback Battery Temp Sensor,

MOC 3 Connectors

$330 freight.

Any comments on any of my choices, better alternatives, issues with B grade panels would be appreciated.

Thank you.

They do not carry the UL or any other approval. That means they will not pass inspection. There could also be a problem with insurance, maybe after a fire if they caused one and the adjuster was sharp. Non approved may simply mean they skipped on that process and the expense to be able to sell cheaper.    Not approved may also mean the wiring is not good enough for the high temperature insulation rating.    Approved panels will usually have connecting wires rated up to 600 volts. One of the Sun panels I searched out a year or more ago had wiring only rated to something around 50-60 volts. That could make series connections iffy. Or maybe not.    Thing is we don't know from what they tell us. Non UL approval could also mean the glass surface is not up to impact (hail) standards.    Again, maybe not; maybe the panels are every bit as good as a UL, CE Tuv, approved panel and Sun is just saving us money.    I have no idea, but you asked for an opinion.

Cosmetic blemishes do not bother me at all. Other unknown or unseen possibly important things do. But that's me.

Quote from: TheWire on August 15, 2010, 08:25:11 PM

Quote
They've done me well but for the $440 why not buy a 200 watt panel?  I bought 3 205 watt panels for $364ea a month ago.

Oljarhead,

I'm leaning towards bigger panels as you suggested. What 205 watt panels did you buy, how much was shipping?

Thank you,

Jerry

Disclaimer:  I'm remote, Libertarian and don't give a rats behind.....*chuckle*

The panels I bought were $1.82/watt  Sun A-205-fa3 205W Solar Module -- I basically bought their off grid system without the Inverter and batteries.

I was able to get a better deal going that route.

But as I see Don mentioned these panels aren't UL listed because they are blems -- though I see no reason to call them 'blemished'.  They seem perfectly fine to me though I haven't had them in the sun yet...should do that today.

Anyway, I'll be 24 miles from the nearest town, 3 miles from the nearest county road and hidden in the trees where only planes and google earth can see me

Of course Google Earth has to update it's maps first too

Quote from: OlJarhead on August 16, 2010, 11:08:12 AM

But as I see Don mentioned these panels aren't UL listed because they are blems --

Hold a sec....  No, no, no, that is not what I said.   I said "They do not carry the UL or any other approval. That means they will not pass inspection".

The fact that the panels are being sold as blemished has nothing to do with UL approval. UL doesn't care if they are pretty. Mostly UL tests for electrical and mechanical safety. Things like does the wire used have insulation that is rated for high enough temperatures, does the insulation have UV resistance, is the conductor large enough to carry the maximum expected amperage, can the module handle high voltages when series connected, and other stuff.

Other brands of panels are also sold as blemished from time to time. I missed out on some Sharp panels by a few weeks when I was looking. They had some kind of scratches on the aluminum frames. They still carried the UL, CE, Tuv approvals. Some Sun panels are simply not approved. Period. Doesn't matter if they have a perfect or blemished finish. On some models they come right out and say yes or no on UL. On others one has to search and sometimes still can not determine if the label indicates UL approved or not.

Maybe I worry too much. I wonder why the manufacturer has not had the panels tested and approved. Maybe there's nothing at all wrong with them. Maybe the panels are deficient in some way? I have no way of knowing. I see them as a long term investment and that's why I bought a "name brand". I'm not saying that the Sharp are better or that the Sun are crap. However, as with anything from soup to nuts I do wonder how two products similar in nature can vary so widely in price.

What I do know is that I have bought many things over the years. Sometimes I have gone for the low ball price just because I don't like to spend a lot of money. Sometimes that has been money foolishly spent when problems have developed prematurely. Sometimes I buy the cheaper thing with full knowledge that it is not going to be as durable as a more expensive item, but that's okay as it is being bought for a one time specific task. Sometimes the cheaper thing is wonderful and is at least as good as the more expensive brand name item. Costco's Kirkland brand AA alkaline batteries come to mind there.

Anyhow, I just would like to be quoted correctly.

Quote from: MountainDon on August 16, 2010, 02:04:15 PM

Quote from: OlJarhead on August 16, 2010, 11:08:12 AM

But as I see Don mentioned these panels aren't UL listed because they are blems --

Hold a sec....  No, no, no, that is not what I said.   I said "They do not carry the UL or any other approval. That means they will not pass inspection".

The fact that the panels are being sold as blemished has nothing to do with UL approval. UL doesn't care if they are pretty. Mostly UL tests for electrical and mechanical safety. Things like does the wire used have insulation that is rated for high enough temperatures, does the insulation have UV resistance, is the conductor large enough to carry the maximum expected amperage, can the module handle high voltages when series connected, and other stuff.

Other brands of panels are also sold as blemished from time to time. I missed out on some Sharp panels by a few weeks when I was looking. They had some kind of scratches on the aluminum frames. They still carried the UL, CE, Tuv approvals. Some Sun panels are simply not approved. Period. Doesn't matter if they have a perfect or blemished finish. On some models they come right out and say yes or no on UL. On others one has to search and sometimes still can not determine if the label indicates UL approved or not.

Maybe I worry too much. I wonder why the manufacturer has not had the panels tested and approved. Maybe there's nothing at all wrong with them. Maybe the panels are deficient in some way? I have no way of knowing. I see them as a long term investment and that's why I bought a "name brand". I'm not saying that the Sharp are better or that the Sun are crap. However, as with anything from soup to nuts I do wonder how two products similar in nature can vary so widely in price.

What I do know is that I have bought many things over the years. Sometimes I have gone for the low ball price just because I don't like to spend a lot of money. Sometimes that has been money foolishly spent when problems have developed prematurely. Sometimes I buy the cheaper thing with full knowledge that it is not going to be as durable as a more expensive item, but that's okay as it is being bought for a one time specific task. Sometimes the cheaper thing is wonderful and is at least as good as the more expensive brand name item. Costco's Kirkland brand AA alkaline batteries come to mind there.

Anyhow, I just would like to be quoted correctly.

Sorry -- mistyped on my part.

Let me try again

The panels that I purchased are 'Blems' and while you can buy the EXACT same panel that IS UL listed the manufacturer doesn't bother with the blems and dumps them on the market.

This isn't uncommon actually.  When I worked in a food plant (pickles) the company made other brands then their own -- these other brands varied in quality assurance.  The ones with the least QA were generally sold as generic brands but were actually the same recipe etc as the name brand -- just less concern over the quality of the product.

In this case the manufacturer (to my understanding) doesn't really want to sell their blemished panels as a 'normal' product and rather then get them stickered etc they dump them cheap to get rid of them.

They are supposed to work as described etc but weren't put through the same testing standards as those sold with the UL sticker on them.

make sense?  You can actually buy the exact same panel with the UL sticker for around $800 rather then the $364 I paid

Not to initiate a flame war, but my understanding of the UL system is as follows.

A manufacturer submits a product for testing. They pay for the testing process up front. If the item passes the UL scrutiny the manufacturer gets permission to have labels printed and applied to the products they then can sell as an approved item. The manufacturer supplies the products to be tested and pays for the testing and approval process. The manufacturer then buys labels from authorized sources. Yes, the labels have to be approved too. The manufacturer also pays subsequent fees for follow up testing on items selected at random as they are produced. Not every item labeled is actually tested.

In other words, the manufacturer does not pay a fee based on the number of labels applied. If they get something approved and then don't sell any they have the up front costs paid. With the above being my understanding of the UL process I do not think it likely that the exact same products are sold as approved and unapproved and with such widely divergent prices.


Maybe I'm misinformed.    If so point me in the right direction.

Quote from: MountainDon on August 16, 2010, 03:24:27 PM
Not to initiate a flame war, but my understanding of the UL system is as follows.

A manufacturer submits a product for testing. They pay for the testing process up front. If the item passes the UL scrutiny the manufacturer gets permission to have labels printed and applied to the products they then can sell as an approved item. The manufacturer supplies the products to be tested and pays for the testing and approval process. The manufacturer then buys labels from authorized sources. Yes, the labels have to be approved too. The manufacturer also pays subsequent fees for follow up testing on items selected at random as they are produced. Not every item labeled is actually tested.

In other words, the manufacturer does not pay a fee based on the number of labels applied. If they get something approved and then don't sell any they have the up front costs paid. With the above being my understanding of the UL process I do not think it likely that the exact same products are sold as approved and unapproved and with such widely divergent prices.


Maybe I'm misinformed.    If so point me in the right direction.

No worries at all Don -- perhaps I'm mistaken in this case???

In truth, I think you know tons more then I do on the subject (actually millions of tons -- thanks for all the help!) so I suspect that in this case I'm wrong.  I'll go see if I can find out where I got the impression I did.

Thanks
Erik

Can't find what I was looking for so quite possibly I got it wrong Don. 

Gosh, shopping for solar panels can get tiring.  The shipping can be a big factor, up 50% of the PV cost, so that must be taken into account.

Per Don's concerns, I looked for an alternative to my first choice (2 - Sun 190 watt PV B grade panels with a max power voltage of 26.7V $338ea.)
$1.78/Watt panel or $2.66/Watt delivered.

The alternative I found was (2 - 165W BP Solar A grade panels UL rated SX6165N with a max power voltage of 35.2V $361ea.)
$2.19/Watt panel or $2.98/watt delivered.

Any feedback on the BP panels?  Doesn't Glenn use Sun panels?  If so can Glenn give his $0.02 on them.

BP has been producing panels for some years. They should be good ones.


Transportation costs were one reason I purchased my panels from a local supplier. I guess I was lucky in that respect.

I have my first set of Sun Panels running  - No problems.

I have my second set - 1000 watts + but have not set them up yet.  I'm not worried about them.

Third set for the pump for a customer arrived today 5 x 75 watt panels.  I can take readings on them when I get working on them in the next couple weeks.

Sun has been in business for - what - 37 years, and they are not staying in business by ripping people off I am assuming.

I am taking them at their word and so far they have not given me a reason to doubt them.

"These modules are made available exclusively to Sun Electronics by one of the world's largest manufacturers. Made in USA! Identical Power specifications as A grade modules, complete factory light tower test is available. These modules have slight cosmetic blemishes. Sun modules are non-UL, Tuv or CE listed. Unlike most other brands which have power specifications within +/- 10%, these modules have power specifications within +-5%!"

I have BP panels too with no problem.  I have BP panels made for Enron also - thin film - low watts (40) for a large area but no problem.  I see watts as being watts.

Cost to ship my panels from AZ to WA was about $220 -- that's 3 panels, midnight solar boxes, breakers, some MC cables and more.

I was pretty happy with that actually.

I pulled one of the Sunelec 75's out of the box and put a meter on it yesterday.

VOC was listed as 21.7  measured at about 10 am on a hot day showed 20.52  - I think within reason

ISC was listed as 4.89  measured ~5.25  so a bit higher than advertised.

I don't think that there will be any problem with them performing to higher than the industry standard as they claim.

The wire was PV1F and rated at 1000 VDC, and the terminal box was rated at 1000 VDC.

I bought the 2 - 165W BP Solar A grade panels UL rated SX6165N with a max power voltage of 35.2V $361ea, Outback FM-60 and a Unirac 5001 pole top mount.  Waiting for them to come in.  Any ideas about where to get 20' of 3" pipe on the cheap?  Does anyone know if galvanized rigid conduit is the same as schedule 40 pipe?

Look for a used pipe dealer. I bought my pole material from a nearby (50 miles) dealer in used drill pipe. It was a bargain compared to new steel, even with the drive to get it.


EMT (rigid metal electrical conduit) is not the same as schedule 40 pipe. Sch 40 has a wall thickness of 1/4 inch in three inch size pipe, EMT is much thinner.

TheWire, I put my panels on 3" rigid galvanized conduit. I have ~4' in the ground with concrete and I welded a piece of 2' long by 8" wide 3/8" thick plate on top of the threaded coupling that comes with the conduit. This acts as my swivel for turning the panels to the sun (manually right now). I have had no trouble with wind, I do have a hole drilled through both coupling and conduit so I can "pin" the panels in place if need be. I will be removing my old setup and putting the 3- 190 watters in place very soon. Blessings, Tickhill

Listen to Don on this one! Conduit is not schedule 40. These mistakes were made decades ago by folks like myself so that you guy's can move forward! 

It's relatively easy to get confused with pipe/conduit/tubing

EMT (electrical metallic tubing): very common light thin wall electrical conduit. This is never threaded as the walls are too thin. Sold in standard 10 ft lengths

RMC and GRC (rigid metal conduit and galvanized rigid conduit): has a thicker wall than EMT, but not as thick a wall as PIPE. Used in industrial and commercial applications more than residential. Sold in standard 10 ft lengths

IMC (a thinner wall version of RMC): approximately 1/3 less metal than RMC. Sold in standard 10 ft lengths

PIPE (made in a variety of wall thicknesses or schedules; schedule 40 is most common) used for fluids and gases, etc.: thicker wall than RMC/GRC. The threads are the same number of threads per inch BUT pipe threads are cut with a taper whereas conduit threads are straight cut, non tapered. Taper thread is required to make fluid and gas tight connections. Sold in standard 21 ft lengths as well as shorter lengths called nipples.


For comparison, 3 inch RMC and GRC has a wall thickness of 0.13 inch and schedule 40 PIPE has a wall thickness of 0.216 inch
                     4 inch RMC and GRC has a wall thickness of 0.13 inch and schedule 40 PIPE has a wall thickness of 0.237 inch