Komisaruk
Newbie
 Offline
Posts: 8
|
 |
« on: October 02, 2011, 04:34:51 PM » |
|
a) On September 9 I had 12 solar PV panels installed on my roof by an MCS accredited installer. However, there are several faults in the way the panels were installed. I am in contact with the installer for the faults to be put right, but have not yet been given a date when this work will be done. For this reason we have not yet paid the balance of the amount due, and have not received the certificate required to complete a home generation contract with our energy supplier. Is there a specified time limit within which registration with an energy supply company must be made, following the installation of the panels, in order to receive the FIT? Would FIT not be granted if registration was delayed outside this period? b) One problem with the installation relates to the way the panels are wired together. Is the proposed hook-up of panels in series shown in the image acceptable and free of snags that I am unaware of? I would be grateful for your advice.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BruceB
|
|
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2011, 05:56:37 PM » |
|
- No time limit that I am aware of. You will lose money for the initial generation if it is working now, because your FIT contract will not start until they receive all your documentation correctly completed.
- 12 panels in series is fine provided the inverter can take the voltage.
What do you think the potential problem with your proposed arrangement is?
Regards
Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Komisaruk
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 8
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2011, 07:15:25 PM » |
|
Thanks for the response Bruce.
a) The installer told us that we had better not delay in having the necessary remedial work done or we might lose out on the FIT. He stated that there is a 1 month deadline after installation, after which the FIT is no longer available and we might as well take the panels down. We have been generating since the installation - about 260 kWh so far.
b) We have 12 x 250 W panels going to a SMA SB3000TL-20 inverter. The installer drew a diagram of how the panels were linked and they seemed to be in series (1 string of 12). The problem is that the way the panels are currently installed, the two cables coming from the array are at the opposite end of the roof to the inverter,` so there is an approx. 10 m length of both cables travelling the length of the loft. The posted image is where I have tried to design an arrangement of linking the panels so that the cables emerge from adjacent panels directly above the inverter to reduce the length of cabling. This would make a neater job in the loft and reduce the power loss a little.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BruceB
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2011, 07:38:14 PM » |
|
I am not aware of the 1 month limit but happy to be corrected if I am wrong. Ted tends to be well up on the detail of this sort of issue.
You are right on point (b) unless there is some other reason the installer has brought it in the other end. Do they say why? Or were they just not thinking? Or the people on the roof not talking to the person in the loft?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ted
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2011, 09:59:55 PM » |
|
The installer is required to provide you with your MCS certificate within 10 working days of commissioning.
There is no limit to the time between installation and when you might decide to enter into a FiTs contract with your chosen supplier, but you will obviously not get credit for whatever generation gets clocked on your meter in the meantime if you delay this for a protracted period. Most suppliers want to have sight of a receipted invoice that indicates you have paid for the system in full (the actual amounts can be blacked out).
I suspect that the installer is trying to pressure you in to paying the outstanding amount.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 02, 2011, 10:01:32 PM by Ted »
|
Logged
|
Volunteer moderator
6kW Proven turbine, 20 Navitron tube solar, GSHP, WBS, Rayburn wood central heating
|
|
|
Komisaruk
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 8
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2011, 08:04:41 AM » |
|
Thanks for the useful information Ted and Bruce.
Towards the end of the installation, I talked to the electrician working in the loft and he was surprised that the roof team had the cabling coming from the panel array at the "wrong" end relative to the inverter, despite him instructing them otherwise. The installation of the panels on the roof was carried out in approx. 2 hours and this rushed job appears to have led to a number of faults besides the incorrect wiring arrangement: (i) irregular spacing of the roof anchors which led to sagging of the support rails, (ii) uneven panels due to (i) and also forward-back misalignment, (iii) scratched panels, and (iv) array not positioned centrally on the roof. The customer service has also been poor. I was very disappointed with this company, which had good reviews on Checkatrade. I am currently awaiting a report following their re-inspection of their own work.
One other question. Should the panels have 0.4 inch/1 cm spaces between them to allow for thermal expansion, as is stated in the manufacturer's instructions?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BruceB
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2011, 08:46:04 AM » |
|
We would need to know what panels and what mounting system to answer your question on thermal expansion accurately.
But in general terms it is not a problem. Most simple domestic installs use aluminium clamps on aluminium frames onto aluminium rails. So it all expands at the same rate so no problem. From memory you can have a Schuco aluminium rail 10m/12m long before you need to start thinking of thermal expansion gaps or slip joins. You do not look like you are approaching that size.
Regards
Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Komisaruk
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 8
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2011, 08:50:57 AM » |
|
Yingli panels/Schuco mounting
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BruceB
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2011, 09:49:11 AM » |
|
Then I think the general answer I gave above applies. The latest installation instructions on the Yingli site just say >1cm apart, which they will be if using Schuco clamps.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Komisaruk
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 8
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2011, 01:16:45 PM » |
|
On the horizontal sides, the panels are around 1 cm apart but on the vertical sides, they are tightly abutted against each other. Is this OK?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BruceB
|
|
« Reply #10 on: October 03, 2011, 01:46:40 PM » |
|
Based on how you describe it, NO.
Can you put a picture or 2 up?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Komisaruk
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 8
|
|
« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2011, 04:11:36 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stannn
|
|
« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2011, 06:59:39 PM » |
|
From the photos, it seems that they did not make much effort to position the mounting rails so that they all lie in one plane. That requires a line and, even better, an eye. Contact between adjacent panels has made the steps look worse than they might do with a gap.
Stan
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Komisaruk
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 8
|
|
« Reply #14 on: October 04, 2011, 07:26:04 AM » |
|
You assume correctly Bruce: landscape panels as shown on my earlier diagram and vertical rails. The sagging of the rails due to uneven spacing/an inadequate number (3) of the roof anchors seems to have caused the unevenness of the panels. There is also front to back misalignment (see additional image). Yes Stan, it appears to be a hurried job by a team without much pride in their work.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
