The beginning of the end of PV

[sparkless]

Today we had a customer phone us with a query.

He had had a PV system installed by another company over a year ago and the returns had not reached his forecast on the contract. after a years readings it was 66% of what he was sold.

He has tried to contact the installation company, but, they have folded and disappeared.
So, he had contacted REAl and they had informed him to contact NICEIC as they were the certifying group for the folded company.
NICEIC had told him as the company didn't trade anymore their was little they could do.

Then he was advised, as he had paid on his credit card, the transaction was guaranteed by VISA and this is why he had phoned us.
he wanted us to go around to his house and some how certify what someone else had installed and advise whether or not it was a bad install or not.

I accepted that we could write a professional letter stating what we thought the system would generate and if he had been misled with sales, but we would obviously charge a fee for this and quoted $150.

He is thinking about it and going to get back to me, obviously we are not going to do it for free, BUT, my point is, isn't this the reason REAl exists?

They have taken a lot of money from me over the years, with the thought that they were policing installations.

Isn't this their department, if they just pass the customer onto NICEIC, what am I paying them for?



I have heard news that the company's which claim mis-sold cpp are running out of customers and are starting to focus on the mis-sold FIT returns market.

we have been MCS and REAl for three years now, and when it runs out in March this year we have decided to quit the industry.

 

[Eco Deal]

I know bad installs take place but I dont see how somebody can sue an installer if the system under performs by say a few 100 kwh in a year? so what happens when it over performs ? does the FITS provider say give us some money back?

if you take 2012 for example March was the best mth of the year for producing energy where in 2011 it was Aug.

all quotes should state that the system is impossible to predict year on year which is part of the REAL code of conduct.

dont get me wrong I hate hearing misleading story's, but somtimes it can go too far

 

[sparkless]

I advised him to pursue the REAl with his queries.
he was forcast 1100kWh and achieved just over 600kWh. thats quite a miss.
I can guarantee non of our systems have under-performed by that much. my point is why didn't the REAl deal with this.
what am I paying them for?

 

[Somecamel]

What size is the system? 4 panels?

 

[SolarCity]

I don't think that some bad installs signals the beginning of the end for solar. I still think that the industry is in its infancy.

I do agree that REAL do appear to be powerless to help the customer in a lot of these situations but all this shows is that customers should spend more time searching out the installers that actually do care about what they do.

 

[sparkless]

What size is the system? 4 panels?

he told me 15 panels

 

[Ian-LS]

he told me 15 panels

15 panels and only predicted 1100 kWh. Smallest wattage panels I've come across are 185 watt panels. So system must be at least 2.77 kWp. That would mean the predicted output was only 398 kWh/kWp which is very very low. Unless it was installed on a north facing roof with shading in North Scotland or something.

Are you sure about the details of the installation

 

[sparkless]

The panels on my roof are 170w.
I only know what he told me. But it does appear very low

 

[Gavin A]

I know bad installs take place but I dont see how somebody can sue an installer if the system under performs by say a few 100 kwh in a year? so what happens when it over performs ? does the FITS provider say give us some money back?

if you take 2012 for example March was the best mth of the year for producing energy where in 2011 it was Aug.

all quotes should state that the system is impossible to predict year on year which is part of the REAL code of conduct.

dont get me wrong I hate hearing misleading story's, but somtimes it can go too far

it all depends on whether his predicted figures were justified or not.

We had a similar situation recently where the company had done a SAP estimate as if there was no shading at all, when the system was on a west north west facing roof with a chimney directly to the south of it. That's the sort of situation where the customer has been probably intentionally misled and would be legally entitled to recompense.

 

[FB.]

I know bad installs take place but I dont see how somebody can sue an installer if the system under performs by say a few 100 kwh in a year? so what happens when it over performs ? does the FITS provider say give us some money back?

If the system was well-installed and the SAP calculated properly, it should be able to beat the SAP-2009 estimate even in bad years.

My system's about a year old, having seen one of the worst summers ever, yet it's about 12% above SAP in the last year. Most of those I know, or follow, are fairly similar. Not many underperform (and if they do, sometimes it's the device measuring generation - the inverter log and the generation meter being different to the electronic widget that attempts to monitor power flows).

SAP should be regarded as the absolute minimum performance level, although the occasional single month below that month's projected SAP is acceptable - although my worst-ever month relative to SAP was May2012; I exactly met the target. Every other month has beaten SAP for that month.

If a system fails to meet SAP on a rolling twelve-month period then I think it's almost certain that it was either mis-sold or badly installed.

 

[taffbutc]

Biggest problem with SAP is that its opinionated. Shading to you may be less than 20% but to me may be over 20%. Straight away a potential customer will choose the one with the best ROI.

Whats your views on this?

Regards

Sean

 

[sedgy34]

You pay real because they have been given the golden egg, they don't have to get involved and if they do they just pass the buck onto who the system was registered through same as what's happened

 

[FB.]

Biggest problem with SAP is that its opinionated. Shading to you may be less than 20% but to me may be over 20%. Straight away a potential customer will choose the one with the best ROI.

Whats your views on this?

Regards

Sean

If shading is more than minor, solar should not be installed. Mis-selling would be the phrase I'd use.
Shade is devastating to the output and often causes inverters to track a false voltage peak when a panel drops out due to shading - and if shading is at peak sunlight times, and peak times of the year, the large amount of power (say 16x250W panels; 500Volts and 8Amps) flowing through the bypass diodes will soon wear them out.
Bypass diodes are usually only barely fit for purpose - for bypassing occasional leaf litter, bird poo and individual cell mis-matches; not for redirecting full power around a shaded panel in mid-summer. I expect many bypass diodes will be found to burn out after only several years where the array suffers from significant shading during peak generation times.

 

[sparkless]

I agree with a lot of comments.
I believe miss-selling is a lot bigger problem than people are acknowledging.
and its only now, a year after the big rush, that customers are noticing.

some of the installs I have seen are terrible, with "single panels facing different directions" to "chimneys shading arrays".

its one of the only trades where everyone can see what has been installed and judge the installs.

there is an install near our office that if they had put less panels on, out of the shade of the chimney, they would have generated more power. But it would have cost less to install, so less profit for the installer.

Even if I was optimistic and thought only 1 in 20 installs will underachieve. it would be enough to give the industry the "Double Glazing salesman" bad name.

 

[taffbutc]

If shading is more than minor, solar should not be installed. Mis-selling would be the phrase I'd use.
Shade is devastating to the output and often causes inverters to track a false voltage peak when a panel drops out due to shading - and if shading is at peak sunlight times, and peak times of the year, the large amount of power (say 16x250W panels; 500Volts and 8Amps) flowing through the bypass diodes will soon wear them out.
Bypass diodes are usually only barely fit for purpose - for bypassing occasional leaf litter, bird poo and individual cell mis-matches; not for redirecting full power around a shaded panel in mid-summer. I expect many bypass diodes will be found to burn out after only several years where the array suffers from significant shading during peak generation times.

Good point FB

I think SAP should be changed and anything under 20% should not be allowed to be fitted, However you know as well as me that companies would still fit them because its not controlled properly.

Your excellent point as made me ask myself this question reference the concerns of many people on the forum! If diodes fail after several years, who is then to blame, installer, Manufacturer or MCS approved body??

Regards

Sean

 

[FB.]

If diodes fail after several years, who is then to blame, installer, Manufacturer or MCS approved body??

I would say installer - bad system design; should have considered something like Solar Edge (will they still be in business in a few years time?) or should have designed the system so as not to have shading during peak sunlight hours from mid-morning to mid-afternoon, say 10am-2pm subject to adjustment for BST clock change.
Or should have got the customer to sign a disclaimer if the customer insisted on full 4kW when 3kW would have been better.

It's not manufacturer because solar panels are not designed to run in shade (otherwise we'd call them "shade panels") - they are made to sit out in full unobstructed sun all day long. Bypass diodes are not fitted specifically for mitigating shading (although they will perform that function to a limited extent), so relying on them to allow bypass when a panel in a big string is shaded and the others in strong sun is not using the panel as it was intended to be used.
If I took my wife's VW Polo off road and smashed the suspension, would VW honour the warranty? Unlikely. But if the suspension failed after going over an ordinary speed bump at a sensible speed I'd expect it to be repaired under warranty.

It was only the over-generous 43p FiT that encouraged people to be silly and install panels where they should never have been installed.

 

[Eco Deal]

I disagree I have installed a system on my own house with over 50% shading between September and March so that would mean I could not install the system which does still save me money on my fuel bills. I did use solar edge by the way.

as long as the customer is given the correct SAP and they make an informed choice from the data supplied.

Good point FB

I think SAP should be changed and anything under 20% should not be allowed to be fitted, However you know as well as me that companies would still fit them because its not controlled properly.

Your excellent point as made me ask myself this question reference the concerns of many people on the forum! If diodes fail after several years, who is then to blame, installer, Manufacturer or MCS approved body??

Regards

Sean

 

[FB.]

as long as the customer is given the correct SAP and they make an informed choice from the data supplied.

That's the problem; unscrupulous salesmen offering optimistic projections.

If the SAP was clearly fudged, there should be grounds for complaint. If the customer was correctly informed in writing and warned of the potential issues of going against your recommendation, then it's the customer's problem if a "custom designed to their specification" system failed to meet expectations.

 

[SRE]

If the system was well-installed and the SAP calculated properly, it should be able to beat the SAP-2009 estimate even in bad years.

My system's about a year old, having seen one of the worst summers ever, yet it's about 12% above SAP in the last year. Most of those I know, or follow, are fairly similar. Not many underperform (and if they do, sometimes it's the device measuring generation - the inverter log and the generation meter being different to the electronic widget that attempts to monitor power flows).

SAP should be regarded as the absolute minimum performance level, although the occasional single month below that month's projected SAP is acceptable - although my worst-ever month relative to SAP was May2012; I exactly met the target. Every other month has beaten SAP for that month.

If a system fails to meet SAP on a rolling twelve-month period then I think it's almost certain that it was either mis-sold or badly installed.

You do live in Cambridgeshire though ...... so you're SAP target is much more likely to be met than those further North. We've scraped a SAP rating hit with ours this year but it was close, 2010/2011 we over performed significantly despite having a telephone wire running diagonally over the panels. SAP is a certainty unless you're South of the Midlands.

SAP is an exceptionally blunt tool that shouldn't really be used and shading is for the customer to decide based on informed opinion which any decent installer will provide. At the end of the day it's down to the customer to do a bit of research about the products and installers they intend to use before they install. Last year I bought a new car, an expensive shed and booked a holiday - all researched extensively before purchased to make sure I was getting what I wanted.

It's hard to compete with either the slick salespeople from the overpriced companies or the idiots charging cost & £100 for installation but at the end of the day most people (with the exception of the vulnerable older clients) understand that slick sales = overpayment and budget price = cutting corners.

 

[sparkless]

This is why REAl have to step-up and earn their money.
They should have an access point for customers to contact them with the returns they have achieved compared to what they were sold.

If policed correctly, anyone found to be miss-selling would be removed from the industry after a year