Replacement panels for a defunct manufacturer

[CBR600]

Afternoon all

We have a couple of damaged Day4Energy 240w modules to replace and so far as I can tell this company no-longer exists. Well not in the same form as it did a few years ago anyway.

A new company has taken up the technology but are not producing these panels. They have suggested replacing the panels with a slightly higher capacity module (say 260w) with a similar amp rating.

Can anyone suggest any other issues to take into consideration?

Thanks

Andrew

 

[whinmoor]

The panel looks slightly unusual on the datasheet. It will be difficult to find a precise match. You might want to shunt some panels around and put the replacement in the least conspicuous place.

These panels are a bit wider than we normally install by 1-2 cm. Better that way round as the replacement should easily fit on the rail.

One distributor of this module back in 2012 was Green Age Solutions of Oldham. I've not heard from them for ages and their website seems to be down. Tracking them down might be tricky.

 

[whinmoor]

Find attached a screenshot of a trade price list from Jan 2012. You can try the two phone numbers but I suspect you're wasting your energy.

Do those prices bring back memories?

 

[TedM]

If you replace panels with those of a higher rating then you could possibly lose your FiT payments. The increase in TIC (even by only a few W) might be seen as an extension which is no longer eligible for FiT. The change would have to be communicated to the FiT supplier under the terms of the owner's annual declaration.

You may get away with getting paid a fractional part of the meter readings, based on the ratio of the old/new TIC but this is, as yet, untested AFAIK. OFGEM have ignored this issue despite having it pointed out to them.

 

[CBR600]

Thanks both of you.

Whinmoor, yes those prices did bring back memories, how things have changed!

Ted, a very helpful reminder, I hadn't considered the FiT implications. Lord knows where we can find 240w panels now...........

 

[Gavin A]

If you replace panels with those of a higher rating then you could possibly lose your FiT payments. The increase in TIC (even by only a few W) might be seen as an extension which is no longer eligible for FiT. The change would have to be communicated to the FiT supplier under the terms of the owner's annual declaration.

You may get away with getting paid a fractional part of the meter readings, based on the ratio of the old/new TIC but this is, as yet, untested AFAIK. OFGEM have ignored this issue despite having it pointed out to them.

It won't have any positive impact on generation though (assuming it's a string inverter), so I don't see that this applies.

It's effectively just a straight replacement of faulty kit, if the exact replacement isn't available then go with the closest match and give the customer a statement about why this work has been done. That should cover it.

 

[TedM]

How a repair/replacement is to be treated by a FiT supplier is discussed in the latest OFGEM guidance document from section 8.10 onwards.

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/system/files/docs/2016/02/fits_guidance_for_licensed_electricity_suppliers_fit_16_v8.pdf

 

[Gavin A]

8.12. The repair or replacement of isolated components of an accredited FIT installation whichdo not affect its generating capacity should not affect the installation’s accreditation under, andongoing participation in, the FIT scheme. In assessing changes to installations, the licenseeshould identify whether the changes mean that all components of the generating equipmenthave been replaced and whether the changes affect the installation’s generating capacity. If theanswer to both of these assessments is in the negative there will be no impact on the FITaccreditation of the installation.

This ought to fall into this category, unfortunately some FIT suppliers may not actually understand how solar PV works and may view adding a single higher capacity panel to a string to be an increase in capacity, ignoring the basic fact that the string will output at the capacity of the lowest performing panel in the string, so adding a single higher performing panel to the string has zero impact on the generating capacity of that string.
f
The fit supplier ought to be notified, but as there's no chance to the capacity of the plant then a simple statement to that effect from the installer (and explanation of why) should suffice.

This probably is an area in which the MCS technical steering committee possibly ought to issue a statement for installers and fit suppliers to refer to - I'll see if I can suggest this.

 

[TedM]

This just goes back to our old problem of PV TIC being taken as panel W at STC x no. of panels.

 

[Gavin A]

This just goes back to our old problem of PV TIC being taken as panel W at STC x no. of panels.

The wording doesn't mention TIC, it mentions generating capacity, and on a string inverter adding the odd higher rated panel has bugger all impact on the generation capacity.

I suspect ofgem have worded that deliberately to avoid using the term TIC or DNC precisely to avoid this sort of situation.

 

[SibertSolar]

Indeed Ted, this ongoing saga with TIC/DNC definitions and restrictions is continuing to be a pain in the proverbial. I'm seeing similar inconsistencies and poor consideration/wording with recent export limitation policy from various DNOs too, although it has to be said that they are all pretty much singing from the same hymn sheet though, at last.

I wish Ofgem had just considered the tariff bands as related to the DNC/max AC output from the inverter(s)....for PV installations. Shouldn't be a feed-in tariff either, ours is a "generation tariff" after all!

Now I'm seeing limitations on permitted installation size based on a calculation/multiplier of the permitted feed-in (export) capacity of the grid + the minimum import (base load) demand from the site.....suggesting that this impacts on the max permitted DNC/AC output of the system, although Ofgem will be considering that limitation in terms of the TIC of the PV array, in kWp! No regard/discussion about power ratios either....easier just to focus on AC output but, oh no, wouldn't be that simple would it! Aargh....

 

[SibertSolar]

Gavin - perhaps Ofgem are wording it as generation capacity because they are finally seeing the sense of ignoring the amount of watts-peak installed on the DC side?.....or am I giving them too much credit?

 

[SibertSolar]

But then, they are hardly going to completely revamp the "FiT" banding structure, hence why there are two questions to answer "no" to in their wording above....which kinda makes sense then - don't affect the banding, and don't affect the here ration capacity, and you're ok?

 

[SibertSolar]

(Here ration = generation) damn autocorrect!

 

[Gavin A]

Gavin - perhaps Ofgem are wording it as generation capacity because they are finally seeing the sense of ignoring the amount of watts-peak installed on the DC side?.....or am I giving them too much credit?

Ultimately at this stage all that should matter is whether or not the change will have any significant impact on the overall annual generation figure. If the answer is no, then it shouldn't impact on the FIT side of things, nor need a new MCS cert as long as there's documentation to explain why - ie confirmation that the panels are no longer manufactured / company has been wound up etc.

We took advice on this recently for someone and that was how it worked out. Ultimately as long as you're doing everything in a reasonable way and in no way attempting to defraud the system then it should be allowed, which seems to be what Ofgem are saying.

 

[TedM]

The only 'generating capacity' that gets registered on the CFR is the TIC and DNC - I can't see that there is any other 'generating capacity' that they could be referring to. This is what 8.13 means.

I also can't imagine that OFGEM are suddenly going to start behaving reasonably, although I would love to be proved wrong on that.

 

[Gavin A]

as I say, this could be something that MCS could do with issuing a technical briefing / statement on - they were the organisation that OFgem worked with to release guidelines for TIC definition, but until that point I'm going to go with the interpretation that if it doesn't actually result in any increase in either annual or peak generation, then it's not an increase in the generating capacity of the system.

(ps can someone remind me about this and I'll try to get it added to the MCS agenda for the next meeting)