Teasing out the differences between the "AC" and "DC" versions of the Tesla PowerWall 2

Being naturally interested in such things, I've been following the announcements and information about the Tesla PowerWall 2 - the follow-on product of the (rarely seen - in the U.S., at least) "original" PowerWall.

Somewhat interestingly/frustratingly, clear, concise (and even vaguely) technical information on either version of the PowerWall 2 (yes, there are two versions - the "DC" and "AC") has been a bit difficult to find, so in my research, what have I found?

Comment:  It would appear that the "DC" version of the PowerWall 2 has been discontinued - or, at the very least, it not routinely offered.

This page or its contents are not intended to promote any of the products mentioned nor should it be considered to be an authoritative source. It is simply a statement of opinion, conjecture and curiosity based on the information publicly available at the time of the original posting. It is certain that as time goes on that information referenced on this page may be officially verified, become commonplace, or proven to be completely wrong. Such is the nature of life!

The "DC" PowerWall 2:

• Data sheets (two whole pages, each - almost!) for both the DC and AC versions of the PowerWall may be found here at this link - link.

Unless you have a "hybrid" solar inverter, this one is NOT for you - and if you had such an inverter, you'd likely already know it.  A "hybrid" inverter is one that is specifically designed to pass some of the energy from the PV array (solar panels) into storage, such as a battery and used that stored energy later.

Unlike its "AC" counterpart (more on this later) this version of the PowerWall 2 does NOT appear to have an AC (mains) connection of any type - let alone an inverter (neither are mentioned in the brochure) - but rather it is an energy back-up for the solar panels on the DC input(s) of the hybrid inverter.   "Excess" power from the panels may used to charge the battery and this stored energy could be used to feed the inverter when the load (e.g. house) exceeds that available from the panels - when it is cloudy, if there is a period in which the load exceeds the output of the PV array for a period of time or there is no sun at all (e.g. night).

Whether or not this version of the PowerWall can actually be (indirectly) charged via the AC mains (e.g.  via a hybrid inverter capable of working "backwards" to produce AC from the mains) would appear to depend entirely on the capability and configuration of the hybrid inverter and the system overall.

But, you might ask,why would you ever want to charge the battery from the utility rather than from solar?  You might want to do this if there were variable tariffs in your area - say, $0.30/kWh during the peak hours in the day, but only $0.15kWh at night - in which case it would make sense supplant the "expensive" power during the day with "cheap" power bought at night to charge it up:  Although there would be, perhaps, a 10% "round trip loss" in doing this, it would still save money overall and help "even out" the loading that a utility might see during peak hours.

Whether or not this system would be helpful in a power outage is also dependent on the nature of the inverter to which it is connected:  Most grid-tie solar converters become useless when the mains power disappears (e.g. cannot produce any power for the consumer - more on this later) - and this applies to both "series string" (e.g. a large inverter fed by high-voltage DC from a series of panels) and the "microinverter" (small inverters at each of the panels) topologies.  Inverters configured for "island" operation (e.g. "free running" in the absence of a live power grid) or ones that can safely switch between "grid tie" and "island" modes would seem to be appropriate if you use the DC PowerWall and you want to keep your house "powered up" when there is a grid failure.

In other words, if you have a typical PV system that involves grid-tie inverters (series string or microinverter) and you have no "islanding" capability at present, the "DC" Power Wall is not for you!

The "AC" PowerWall 2:

• Data sheets (two whole pages, each - almost!) for both the DC and AC versions of the PowerWall may be found here - LINK.

While the "AC" version seems to have the same battery storage capacity as the "DC" version (e.g. approx. 13.5kWh) it also has an integrated inverter and charger that interfaces with the AC mains that is apparently capable of supporting any standard voltage from 100 to 277 volts, 50 or 60 Hz, split or single phase.  This inverter, rated for approximately 7kW peak and 5-ish kW continuous, is sufficient to run many households.  Multiple units may be "stacked" (e.g. connected in parallel-type configuration - up to nine of them, according to the data sheet linked above) for additional storage and capacity.

Unlike the "DC" version, all of the power inflow/outflow is via the AC power feed, which is to say, it will both output AC power via its inverter and charge its battery via that same connection.  What this means is that it need not (and cannot, really) be directly connect to the PV (photovoltaic) system.  What seems clear is that this version has some means of monitoring the net flow in to and out of the house and to/from the utility which means that the PowerWall could balance this out by "knowing" how much power it could use to charge its battery, or needed to output.

(The basic diagram of Figure 1, below, shows how such a system might be connected.  This diagram does not specifically represent a PowerWall, but rather how any battery-based inverter/charger system might be used to supply back-up power to a home in the past and future.)

Because its power would be connected "indirectly" via AC power connections to the PV system it should (in theory) work with either a series-string or microinverter-type system - or, maybe even if you have no solar at all if you simply want to charge it during times of lower tariffs and pull the charge back out again during high tariffs.

(The Tesla brochure simply says "Support for wide range of usage scenarios" under the heading "Operating Modes" - which could be interpreted many ways, but at the time of the original posting of this article I have not actually seen an "official" suggestion of a use without any sort of solar power.)

What might such a system look like - schematically, at least?

How might this version of the PowerWall operate?  First, let's take a look at a diagram of how any sort of battery/inverter/charger like this might be configured for a house.

Figure 1:
Diagram of a generic battery-based "whole house" backup system based on obvious requirements.  This is a very basic diagram, showing most of the needed components that would be required to interface a battery-based inverter/charger with a typical house's electrical system and a PV (PhotoVoltaic/solar) charging system.
For those not familiar with North American power systems, typical residences are fed with 240 volt, center-tapped service from the utility's step-down transformer with this center-tap grounded at the service entrance.  This allows most devices to operate at 120 volts while those that consume large amounts of power (ranges, electric water heaters, electric dryers, air conditioners, etc.) are connected to 240 volt circuit, which may or may not need the "neutral" lead at all.  In most other parts of the world there would be only "L1" and the "Neutral" operating at about 240 volts.
Click on the image for a larger version.

Referring to Figure 1, above:

Shown to the right of center is a switch that opens when the utility's power grid goes offline, isolating the house and the inverter/charger from the power grid and included in that is a voltage monitor (consisting of potential transducers, or "PTs") that can detect when the mains voltage has returned and stabilized and it is "safe" to reconnect to the grid.  The battery-based inverter/charger is connected across the house's mains so that it can both pull current from it to charge its battery as well as push power into the house in a back-up situation.

The "Net current monitoring" current transducers ("CTs") might be used to allow the inverter/charger to "zero out" the total current (and, thus power) coming in from and going out to the power grid (under normal situations) such as when its battery is being charged and extra power is being produced by the PV system, but also to control the charge rate just so that only that "extra" power from the PV system is being used to assure, as much as possible, a net-zero flow to/from the utility.  The "House Current monitoring" is used to determine how much current is being used by the entire house while the "PV current monitoring" is used to determine the contribution of the PV system.

Comment:

The "PV current monitoring" point is probably superfluous:  All the PowerWall need know is how much power is going in to or out of the utility (power grid) and how much power is going in to or out of the house's main panel, which also includes any solar generation.  The third factor - how much power the PowerWall is using/producing is going to be available from the PowerWalls' own built-in monitoring.

By knowing these things it is possible to determine how much excess/deficit their may be in terms of the production of the PV system with respect to actual usage by the household.  Not shown is the current monitoring that would, no doubt, be included in the inverter/charger itself.  Some of the shown current monitoring points may be redundant as this information could be determined in other ways, but are included for clarity.

Finally, a local network (data) connection is shown for both the inverter/charger and the PV system so that there is a possibility that they may communicate with each other, perhaps for control purposes, as well as communicate via the Internet so that statistics may be monitored and recorded and to allow firmware updates to be issued.

How it might operate in practice:

As can be seen in Figure 1 and determined from the explanation, we can see that the PV is connected to the input/output of the inverter/charger (which could be a PowerWall - or any other similar system) via the house wiring which means that there is a path to the PowerWall to charge its battery, and the same path out of it when it needs to supply power, along with means of monitoring power flow.

With a system akin to that depicted in Figure 1, consider these possible scenarios:

1. Excess power is being produced by the PV system and put back into the grid and the PowerWall's battery is fully-charged.   Because the battery is fully-charged there is nowhere to put this extra power so it goes back into the grid, tracked by the utility's "Net Meter" in the same way that it would be without a PowerWall.
2. Excess power is being produced by the PV system and the PowerWall's battery is not fully charged.  The PowerWall will pull the amount of "excess" power that the PV system would normally be putting into the grid and charge its own battery at that same rate resulting in a net-zero amount of power being put into the grid.
3. More power is being consumed by the user's household than is being produced by the solar array.  Depending on the state-of-charge and configuration of the PowerWall it may produce enough power to make up for the difference between what the PV system is producing and the user's needs.  At night this could (in theory) be 100% of the usage if the system were so-configured.
4. Tariff leveling.  It would be theoretically possible to configure it so that whether or not solar was present and the utility charged a higher daytime than nighttime power rate, one could charge overnight from the mains and put out power during the day to reduce the power costs overall and to help "level" the utility's load.

What about a power outage?

All of the above scenarios are to be expected - and they are more-or-less standard offerings for many of the battery-based products of this type - but what if the AC mains go down?  For the rest of this discussion we will ignore the "DC" version of the PowerWall as its capability would rely on the configuration of the user's hybrid inverter and its capabilities/configuration when it comes to supplying backup, "islanded" AC power although the combination of a DC power wall and the appropriate inverter could be functionally identical to an AC Power Wall.

As mentioned before, with a typical PV system - either "series string" (one large inverter) or distributed (e.g. "microinverter") - if the power grid goes offline the PV system becomes useless:  A PV system requires the power grid to be present to both synchronize itself and present an infinite "sink" into which it can always "push" all of the "extra" power power that it is producing.  Were such units to not shut down, dangerous voltages could be "back-fed" into the power grid and be a hazard to anyone who might be trying to repair it.  It is for this reason that all grid-tie inverters are, by law, required to go offline and/or disconnect themselves completely from the power grid during a mains power outage.

The "AC" version of the Tesla PowerWall's system includes a switch that automatically isolates the house from the utility's power grid when there is a power failure.  Once this switch has isolated the house from the power grid the inverter built into the PowerWall can supply power to the house - at least as long as its battery lasts.

What about charging the battery during a power outage?

Here is where it seems to get a bit tricky.

If all grid-tie inverter systems go offline when the power grid fails, is it possible to use it to assist, or even charge the PowerWall during a grid failure?  In other words, can you use power from your PV system to recharge the PowerWall's battery or, at the very least, supply at least some of the power to extend its battery run-time?

In corresponding with a company representative - and corroborated by data openly published by Telsa (see the FAQ linked near the bottom of this posting) - the answer would appear to be "yes" - but exactly how this works is not very clear.

Based on rather vague information and knowing the behavior of the components involved it would seem to need to work this way:

• The power (utility) grid goes down.
• The user's PV system goes offline with the failure of the grid.
• The PowerWall's switch opens, isolating the house completely from the grid - aside from the ability to monitor when the power grid comes back up.
• The inverter in the PowerWall now takes the load of the (now isolated) house, producing AC power.

Were this all that happened, the house would again go dark once the battery in the PowerWall or similar "back-up power system" was depleted, but there seems to be more to it than this when a PV system is involved, as in:

• When the back-up power system's inverter goes online, the PV system again sees what looks like the power grid and comes back online.
• As it does, the back-up power system monitors the total power consumption and usage and any excess power being produced by the PV system is used to charge its battery.
• If the PV system is producing less power than is being used, the back-up power system will supply the difference:  Its battery will still be discharged, but at a lower rate.  The house will still go dark when the battery is fully discharged.

Comment: 

What if you run the Power Wall down to the point where it goes offline and then the sun comes out the next day:  Is it possible to "bootstrap" the system to cause the PV to go online and start charging the battery, or are you "stuck" in an "offline" state where you can't produce PV to charge the battery because there is no AC power, but you can't produce AC power to charge the battery?

It is entirely possible that the DC version of the Power Wall may be "immune" to this "catch-22" situation by allowing some "reserve" capacity to restart once PV power is again available for charging - but how would it know that?

But now it gets even trickier and a bit more vague.

What if there is extra power being produced by the PV system?

Grid tie PV systems expect the power grid to be an infinite sink of power - but what if, during a power failure, when your backup up system is standing in as the power grid, your PV system is producing 5kW of solar energy and your house/inverter is using only 2kW:  Where does the extra 3kW of production go if it cannot be infinitely sinked into the utility grid, and how does one keep the PV system from "tripping out" and going off line?

To illustrate the problem, let us bring up a related scenario where we have a generator instead of some sort of battery-based back-up power system system.

There is a very good reason why owners of grid-tie systems are warned against using it to "assist" a backup generator and using that generator as a substitute for the power grid.  What can happen is this:

• The AC power goes out and the transfer switch connects the house to the generator.
• The generator comes online and produces AC power.
• If the AC power from the generator is stable enough (not all generators produce adequately stable power) the PV system will come back online thinking that the power grid has come back.
• When the PV system comes back online and produces power, the generator's load decreases:  Most generator's motors will slightly speed up as the load is decreased.
• When the generator's motor speeds up, the frequency goes high.  When this happens, the PV system will see that as unstable power and will go offline.
• When the PV system goes off, the power is suddenly dumped on the generator and it is hit with the full load and slows back down.
•  The cycle repeats, with the PV system and generator "fighting" each other as the PV system continually goes on and offline.

An even worse scenario is this:

• The AC power goes out, the transfer switch connects the house to the generator.
• The generator comes online and produces power.
• The PV system comes up because it "sees" the generator as the power grid, but its producing, say, 5kW but the house is, at the moment, using 2kW.
• The PV system, because it think that it is connected to the power grid, will try to shove that extra 3kW somewhere, causing one or more of the following to happen:
• The generator to speed up as power is being "pushed" into it, its frequency will go high and trip the PV system offline, and/or:
• If the PV system tries to push more power into the system than there is a place for it to go (e.g. the case, above, where the solar is producing 3kW more than is being used) the voltage will necessarily go up.  Assuming that the generator doesn't "overspeed" and trip-out and the frequency doesn't go up and trip the PV system offline, the PV system will increase the voltage, trying to "push" the extra power into a load where there is nowhere for it to go:
• As the PV system tries to "push" its excess power into the generator, it will increase the output voltage.  At some point the PV system will trip out on overvoltage, and the same "on-off" cycle mentioned above will occur.
• It is possible that the excess power from the PV will "motor" the generator (e.g. the input power tries to "spin" the generator/motor) - an extremely bad thing to do which will probably cause it to overheat and eventually be destroyed if this goes un-checked.
• If it is an "inverter" type generator, it can't be "motored", but the excess power will probably cause the generator's inverter to get stuck in the same "trip out/restart" cycle or simply fault out in an "overload condition - or the inverter might even be damaged/destroyed.

If having extra power from a grid-tie inverter is so difficult to deal with, what could you do with extra power that the PV system might be producing?

What if we have excess power and nowhere to put it?

The question that comes to mind now is "What does the PV system do when the PowerWall's battery is fully-charged and there is no-where to put extra energy that might be being produced?"  Where we have is the situation where our PV system is producing 5kW but we are using only 2kW leaving an extra 3kW to go... where?

The answer to that question is not at all clear, but four possibilities come to mind:

1. Divert the power elsewhere.  Some people with "island" systems utilize a feature of some solar power systems that indicate when excess power is available and use it to operate a diversion switch to shunt the excess power in an attempt to do something useful like run an electric water heater, pump water or simply produce waste heat with a large resistor bank.  Such features are usually available only on "island" systems (e.g. those that are entirely self-contained and not tied to the power grid) and with large battery banks.
2. Disable the PV system temporarily.  If it is possible, simply disable the PV system for a while and drain, say, 5-10% of the power out of the back-up power system battery before turning it back on and recharging it.  This will cause the PV system to cycle on and offline, but it will do so relatively slowly and it should cause no harm.
3. Tell the PV system to shut off.  One could somehow communicate with the PV system and "tell" it to produce only the needed amount of energy.  This is a bit of a fine line to walk, but it is theoretically possible provided such a feature is available on the PV system.
4. Alter the power to cause the PV system to drop off-line.  One could, in theory, alter the conditions of the power being produced by the back-up power system inverter such that it causes the PV system to go offline and stay that way until it needs to come back online.

Analyzing the possibilities:

Let's eliminate #1 as that will not apply to a typical grid-tie system, so that leaves us with:

#2:  Disabling the PV system:

Of these three possibilities #2 would seem to be the most obvious and it could be done simply by having another switch/relay on the output of the PV system that disconnects it from the rest of the house, forcing it to go offline - but this has its complications.

For example, in my system the PV is connected into a separate sub-panel located in the garage:  If one were to disconnect this branch circuit entirely, the power in the garage would go on and off, depending on the state-of-charge of the PowerWall or other battery-based back-up power system.  Connecting a PV system to a sub-panel is not an unusual configuration as it is not uncommon to find them connected to sub-panels that feed other systems, say, the air conditioner, kitchen, etc. (e.g. wherever a suitable circuit is available) so I'm guessing that they do not do it this way - unless they do it at the point before the PV system connects to the panel.  Doing this would require a remotely-controlled switch in many situations - awkward to wire up in many situations, but not impossible.

As noted above, one would disable the PV system once the battery had fully charged but enable it again once the battery had run down a bit - say, to 90-95%.  This way, one would not be rapid-cycling the PV system and the vast majority of the back-up power system's battery storage capacity would be available.

While this, too, should work, I suspect that it is not the one that is used as the drawings in the brochures don't show any such connection - but then again, they don't show the main house disconnect that would have to be present - but it would probably work just fine if the PV system were to gracefully come back online when it was time to do so (e.g. no user intervention to "reset" anything.)

#4:  Alter the operating conditions to cause the PV system to go offline:

Then there is #4, and one interesting possibility comes to mind - and it may sound like a kludge, but it should work.

One of the parameters that could be altered would be the frequency at which the back-up power system's inverter operates (say, 2-3 Hz or so above and/or below the proper line frequency) and force the PV system offline with that variance.  Even though this minor frequency change is not likely to hurt anything (many generators' frequencies drift around much more than this with varying loads!) devices that use the power line frequency as a reference - such as clocks, and clocks within various appliances - would drift rather badly unless the frequency were "dithered" above and below the proper frequency so that its long term average was properly maintained.

I suspect that this is not a method that would be used, but it could work - at least in theory.

Edit - 20170719:

In digging around, I have determined that "dithering" the frequency is, in fact, one of several ways that is used by an battery-backed inverter to disable a PV inverter when the PV is producing more power than can be accommodated by the load and/or battery charger.  This system, called "Frequency Shift Power Control" (FSPC) by at least one manufacturer (e.g. SunnyBoy) is designed to do this very thing.

A description of this technique may be found in section 6 of the document "Use of PV Inverters in Off-Grid  and Backup Systems in North and  South America" by SMA (SunnyBoy) found at this link.

Whether or not this is a control method used by the Power Wall is not known at this time.

Edit - 20180502:

Now having had an operational PowerWall 2 system for some time, I can verify that it is, in fact the "frequency control" method that is used.  During a sunny day with the battery at about 90%, I disconnected my house from the utility and observed that the PowerWall was taking a charge from the PV system.  During this time I monitored the AC mains frequency in the house.

At 97-98% charge the mains frequency increased from 60.00Hz to 60.50 Hz over several minutes at which point my PV inverters shut down due to the frequency being out of tolerance.  As the charge level dropped back down to 95% or so, the frequency slowly returned to 60.00 Hz and eventually the PV inverters came back online.  I kept the mains power disconnected for several hours and the above cycle repeated continuously.

My SunnyBoy PV inverters will simply "drop" abruptly when the limit (60.50 Hz) is reached, but it is possible that there are inverters out there that will, at some point, more gradually throttle the power back above a certain frequency threshold.  While this scheme would be more "graceful", either method works just fine.

One side-effect of this method is that the average mains frequency is increased during those times where the PV inverter is to be disabled.  If we assume that one were running only on solar, and there were 3 peak solar production hours that this will occur 50% of the the time (e.g. about 90 minutes spent at 60.5 Hz during the day) this would mean that clocks that were synchronized to the mains frequencies (many plug-in digital clocks, most appliances) would run "fast" by about 45 seconds per day.  This difference is in mains frequency is small enough that motorized appliances will function just fine.

#3:  "Talk" to the PV system and control the amount of power that it is producing:

That leaves us with #3:  Communicate with the PV system and "tell" it (perhaps using the "ModBus" interface) to produce only enough power to "zero" out the net usage.

The problem with this method is that it would depend on the capabilities of the PV inverter system and require that they support such specific remote control functions.  While it is very possible that some do, this method would be limited to those so-equipped and compatibility across many brands/models could be difficult.

#3 and #2:  "Talk" to the PV system to turn it on and off as needed:

Included in #3 could be a variant of method #2 and that would be to send a command to the inverter via its network connection to simply shut down and come back online as needed to keep the battery between, say, 90% and 100% charge as mentioned above.

This second variant of #3 seems most likely as there as it is possible that there is some sort of set of commands capable of this that would be widely implemented across vendors and models.

* * *

What do I think the likelihood to be?

I'm betting on the second variant of #3 where a command is sent to the PV system to tell it to turn off - at least until there is, again, somewhere to "send" excess power - but #4 is looking increasingly likely.

* * *

Having said all of this, there is a product FAQ that was put out by Tesla that seems to confirm the basic analysis - that is, its ability to run "stand alone" in the event of a power failure and the charge be maintained if there is sufficient excess PV capacity - read that FAQ here - LINK.

I'm investigating getting a PowerWall 2 system to augment my PV generation and provide "whole house" backup.  In the process I have been researching how it works and interfaces with both the utility and my existing PV system. While I have occasionally asked questions of representatives of  Tesla, nothing that they have said is anything that could not be easily found in publicly-released information on the internet and as of the original date of this posting I haven't signed anything that could possibly keep me from talking about it. However all of its interfacing and connectivity is done, it should be interesting!

Additional information may be found on the GreenTech Media web site:  "The New Tesla Powerwall Is Actually Two Different Products" - LINK.  This article and follow-up comments seem to indicate that there were, at the time of their writing, there were only a few manufacturers of inverters, namely SolarEdge and SMA (a.k.a. SunnyBoy) with which Tesla was installing/interfacing their systems, perhaps indicating some version of #2 or #3, above.  Clearly, the comments, mostly from several months ago, are also offering various conjectures on how the system actually works.

* * *

Finally, if you can find more specific information - say from a public document or from others' experience and analysis that can add more to this, please pass it along!


[End]

This page stolen from "ka7oei.blogspot.com"

The solar saga - part 2: Getting the system online

In part one (March 2, 2016) I wrote about why I chose to use a series string inverter system.  (Hint:  It was to prevent radio-frequency interference.)  To read part one, click on the link here:  The Solar Saga - Part 1:  Avoiding Interference (Why I did not choose microinverters.)

Eventually, I was able to get the system "online" in late April even though everything solar-related had been in place for over 2 months.  Why the delay?

Figure 1:
Slip-sliding around, the work crew clearing ice and snow off
the metal garage roof.  Later, they wielded a propane
"weed burner" to loosen the remaining ice and snow and
dry the metal roof panels.
Click on the image for a larger version.

As is often the case in life, things don't always go exactly according to plan!

Installing the panels:

Going back a bit, the solar panels and inverter were actually installed in February.

In the winter.

In the snow.

Think about that for just a moment, particularly considering when the system was actually put online.

Figure 2:
The mounting rails for the solar panels, installed.  If you
look carefully in the background you can see where
someone fell hard on the ridge cap, slightly crushing it!
Click on the image for a larger version.

To be sure, there was a lot to do, but everything seemed to be going according to plan, with no obvious trouble (of which I was ever informed) with the city in pulling permits.

Part of the install actually began a few weeks before this when a survey crew came out to check out the "sun situation" where the panels were to be installed.  As soon as they arrived they placed a ladder against the garage roof and then I heard some muttering:  They'd just realized that they had left the device that analyzes the sun's path and potential shadows at the previous job some 15-20 miles north in another county.  Instead of being able to plop this device down in the locations of the solar arrays they squinted with expert eyes at the trees and sky and declared more or less "I don't think that shade will be a problem."  Who was I to argue - they were professionals!

Figure 3:
The installed eastern solar array  At the time that the picture
was taken the system was wired up, but without a net meter it
couldn't be "officially" used.
Click on the image for a larger version.

Aside from lots of slipping and sliding on the snow-covered metal roof, the installation seemed to go well with the rails having been installed the first day and the roof penetration - a set of rubber "Flasher" bushing type thing being used to seal about the electrical conduit that emerged from from within the garage itself, one for each array.

A few days later the panels were on the roof and the inverter wired up and connected to the new electrical sub-panel that I'd put in the garage a few weeks before.  While the system worked, I really couldn't use it as the "Net Meter" was not yet installed and any excess power that I produced would be charged to me just as if I'd actually used it!

Figure 4:
A screen shot of the system producing just under 1400 watts
in "Standalone" or "Island" mode - a configuration that allows
the solar electric system to produce useful energy even if the power
grid was down, unlike a microinverter system where the potential
electrical solar power from the panels is completely
inaccessible if the power is out!
Click on the image for a larger version.

While I could not do the "net meter" thing, one feature provided by the Sunny Boy inverters - but not with microinverter systems - is the "Secure Power System" or "SPS" (tm) that will allow power "islanding".  In other words, if the main breaker is shut off and a switch is flipped, the inverter will provide up to 1.5kW of power (12 amps, 125 volts) - even if the mains power is unavailable, provided that there is adequate sun, of course:  Just try that with a microinverter system!

Figure 5:
The installed Sunnyboy 5+kW inverter and the garage
sub-panel to which it is connected.   Below and
to the left of the inverter is the DC disconnect switch
for the two independent MPPT solar panel strings
(the "East" and "West") and just to the right
of it is the "SPS" or "Standalone" power outlet capable of
providing up to 12 amps at 125 volts (1.5kW) even
if the electrical grid is offline.
Click on the image for a larger version.

A problem with the electrical service entrance:


From the beginning I was informed that my main electrical panel - the place where the power from underground gets to the house - would have to be replaced.  Fortunately, this cost was "baked into" the cost of the system itself and since I'd replaced the sub-panel in my garage myself, the installers would cover it.  In asking around I determined that in my case, the typical cost for this would be in the $1000-$1500 range including all parts and labor.

The reason that the old panel had to be replaced was ostensibly due to the "20% rule", and in my case it went something like this:

My panel, originally installed when the house was new (early 1970s) was rated for 100 amps on the bus.  The "20% rule" said that it was permissible to have 20% above this value, or up to 120 amps.  The problem was that my photovoltaic system would, being capable of 5.3 kilowatts, could in theory of being capable of putting 22-24 amps (depending on voltage) on the bus and this, combined with a 100 amp main breaker, meant that I could put a total of 124 amps on the bus.

This would not pass muster - or inspection - so the panel was to be upgraded to a 125 amp unit with a 100 amp breaker which, according to the same rule, should allow a total of 150 amps on the bus.

A few days before the date in late February when the service upgrade was scheduled I got a call from the contractor saying that they couldn't do it:  The power company would not sign off because of the location of the gas line and meter with respect to the electrical panel itself.  After being informed of this I took a walk through my neighborhood and observed that about a third of the houses had their electrical panels "on top" of the gas meters.

Figure 6:
 The old meter and below it, the gas meter for the
house:  Since the solar was now connected, it was
required that the red warning tag be attached even
before the net meter was installed.
The power company ultimately determined that the
electrical panel and its underground conduit had to be
relocated to a minimum of 36" (about 92cm) distant from
the gas meter and any of its piping.  I couldn't be sure,
but it looked as though the gas meter was installed
after the electrical with the original riser pipe for the
electrical being wedged between the
house and the gas meter!
Click on the image for a larger version.

As it turns out, current code in this area requires at least a 36 inch separation between the closest part of the gas line and meter and any part of the electrical entrance.  What was surprising is that none of the contractors that had visited my place to assess the scope of work had caught this, let alone planned for it!

In my case the gas meter was literally touching the conduit from the underground power feed and the panel itself was about 3 feet above the gas meter.  Since the panel was to be upgraded, it had to meet current code so it would have to be moved.  This also meant that the underground power feed, which was a length of "direct burial" wire would also have to be redone, placed in 4" conduit and run to the location of the new meter.

All of this meant a delay - about 4 weeks, as it turned out - as the plans had to be revised and arrangements had to be made to coordinate the schedule of the electrical contractor with the schedule of the city inspector along with having "Blue Stakes" come out and mark the utilities so that yet another contractor could dig a trench in my front yard from the power junction to the location of the new meter.  While this meant that it would be another 4 weeks or so before the work would be done - and likely another 2-3 weeks after that before my "Net Meter" would be installed - it also meant that the company in charge of all of the work would end up "eating" the difference in cost which was probably something in the area of an extra $1000-$1500 on top of the already-allocated cost for panel replacement.

Comment:

There is a device called a "Connect DER" (tm) that may be used in many locales to bypass the need to upgrade or replace the house's electrical service when solar power is installed.  This device plugs into the original meter base and is sandwiched between the original panel and the power company's electrical meter so that the additional current of the solar power system does not appear on the house's electrical bus since the connections to the solar is made on the Connect DER itself with a built-in circuit breaker for electrical protection and to allow it to be disconnected.

For various reasons this sort of device was apparently not an option in my case - possibly because of the fact that the gas and electrical piping were co-located. 

Figure 7:
The narrow trench that magically appeared in my yard,
running between the underground junction from the
electrical utility to the approximate location of
the new panel.
Click on the image for a larger version.

Finally, the day arrived where there appeared a trench in my front yard (figure 7).  A few days later the electricians arrived and installed the new panel and a conduit in the trench - but I couldn't help but notice that it was only about 23" from the gas lines, a fact that I mentioned to them when they arrived the next morning (figure 8).  After a bit of digging and drilling, the new panel and conduit was suddenly another 18" or so farther away from gas meter than it had been.  At about this time the power company and city inspector showed up to disconnect the power from the mains and pull new conductors into the conduit under the watchful eye of the inspector who gave preliminary approval to the work plan.

Off came the old panel to be replaced with a weatherproof junction box, connected to the new panel with a run of conduit.  In the new junction box - at the location of the original panel - a "horse tail" of wires appeared representing the individual circuits in the house, each of which had to be spliced with a new set of conductors wired to the new panel.  After about 4 hours of work everything was turned back on and I was back in business.

Figure 8:
Oops!  That ain't no 36" separation between the gas
and electrical!  The vertical pipe on the left, against the
brick was the conduit conveying the electrical to
the old meter.
Click on the image for a larger version.

A day or two later the city inspector came back to meet with me and a representative of the contractor to survey the work done both with the installation of the new panel and the photovoltaic system.  Finding everything to his satisfaction he gave his approval which also meant that the power company was notified so that the "Net Meter" would be installed.  A couple days after this a small work crew from a landscaping company appeared, filling in the trench in the front yard and replanting the sod that had been removed.

About two and a half weeks later I came home from work to find a notice from the power company stuck to my front door indicating that the net meter had, in fact, been installed so I happily closed the necessary breakers to put the system online.  Since it was already the evening, not much power was produced that day, but it was now ready for the next days' sun!

* * *

Figure 9:
In mid-job, the "horse tail" wires from the original
breaker panel emerging from the junction box that
had been installed in the approximate location of the
original breaker panel.  New wires were run
between it and the new service entrance/breaker panel.
I have since painted the new junction box and conduit a
red color to somewhat match the brickwork.
Click on the image for a larger version.

A minor shading problem:

As of this posting it has now been about four months since the system was put online and it has been working quite well.  One minor complication - something that I would have addressed earlier had I been aware of it - has to do with the fact that some of the eastern panels were located where they get shade until a bit after noon, reducing the output of the east array by 15-20% during that time.

By late March I was noticing that the northern-most panel was starting to be shaded by a nearby pine tree and by June and July, the angle of the sun had precessed to the point where at least three panels were being completely shaded in the morning, the shade finally clearing about an hour before "local noon" - or around 12:45.  Had I been aware of this I might have requested to have the east panels arranged somewhat differently to reduce this effect as there is plenty of room on the roof to do this

Would microinverters have improved this situation?  Perhaps by only 5% or so:  The real problem is that the panels get shadowed lengthwise, equally affecting each of the three sections of the panel isolated by the built-in "shade tolerance" diodes so these diodes don't have a useful effect when shading occurs in that aspect which means that it would be more difficult to extract power from it by any means.

A month or so after installation I was able to get them to come back out and do the formal shade analysis that they hadn't done before starting the job and it confirmed what was empirically observed - plus it gave a bit of information as to what problems could arise in the future in terms of tree growth.

* * *

No RF noise at all!

As far as my one of my original concerns - that of generated RF noise - I can detect absolutely nothing from the photovoltaic system at all at any frequency.

The "quiet-ness" of the system can be borne out by the fact that even if one brings a portable receiver right up to the panels or the inverter, nothing at all can be heard from it except when its antenna gets within a few inches of the inverter's LCD panel.

Where I do get some RF noise is from sources unrelated to the solar power - switching type "wall warts" scattered throughout my house, powering various things, but most of the "problem" devices have already been quieted as described in previous postings on this blog, see:

• December 17, 2015 - Minimizing VHF (and HF) RFI from electronic ballasts and fluorescent tubes - Link
• August 18, 2014 - Completely containing switching supply RFI - Link
• September 4, 2013 - Quieting high-current switching power supplies used in the ham shack - Link
• December 2, 2012 - Reducing switching power supply racket (RF Interference) - Link

* * *

Generation of power - observations:

In the (over) four months of operation the cumulative amount of power has exceeded my actual usage by about 300 kWh so the recent power bills have been low - just the "minimum charge" of less than $10.  According to my calculations based on past and current usage I expect to use up that surplus in the winter when the "production" of the the photovoltaic system will be much lower due to the lower sun angle, shorter days, occasional snow cover and the tendency for there to be extended temperature inversions that can block sun for days at a time.

At the moment I do not have a "refrigeration" whole-house air conditioner - only an evaporative (a.k.a. "swamp") cooler and a wheel-around "room" air conditioner for those relatively rare days that it is both hot and humid, but I'm considering getting a whole-house A/C sometime in the future:  When I do that I may consider increasing the capacity of my photovoltaic system.

While the system has eighteen 285 watt panels which are theoretically capable of 5130 watts, the slant of the roof (north-south ridge line with panels mounted flat on the east and wet sides), the operating temperature of the panels (an output power reduction of 0.45% per degree C panel temperature) and the actual solar insolation (e.g. the actual amount of solar energy) has limited the peak power to around 3800 watts on hotter, crystal clear days and about 4300 watts on cooler days.

If one does the  numbers this should not be too surprising.  For example, the 285 watt panel rating assumes a cell temperature of 25C.  On a hot summer day where the ambient air temperature is around 38C and the panels themselves are around 50C (a fairly modest temperature as my roof is metal and very light-colored which keeps it quite cool) that means that assuming a temperature derating of about 0.5%/C that I have lost - from heat alone - 12.5% of power, or can expect only about 250 watts per panel, or 4500 watts from the system - and that would assume that the sun was illuminating the panel at optimal right-angles - which it really cannot at any time of year.

Since my panels are on a roof with a moderate east-west pitch, I lose another 15% or so of solar insolation on a typical summer day due to the angle, yielding a number that is actually pretty close to the 3800 watt peak.  What I have observed is that because of the east/west angle of the two strings that I have a slight "double" peak around "local" noon when, before noon the angle is nearly optimal for the east array and then similarly, after noon, for the west array.  To make matters worse, during many days of the summer in recent years the valley's air is a bit murky due to some smog and the frequent wildfires that seem to be a regular occurrence in the western U.S. these days, knocking off another 10-15% of production.

What this means is that, in theory, I could have used a 4kW inverter if I was willing to tolerate a bit of "clipping" (e.g. more available photovoltaic power than the inverter will produce) on optimal days (e.g. cool spring or fall days with clear air) and possibly have averted all of the hassle with the 20% rule and the replacement of the electrical panel, but considering the state of the older electrical distribution panel, its replacement was probably for the best! If I wished to do so, I could (in theory) add another 4 panels to my system which would just about bring it to clipping under optimal conditions and to around 4600 watts on a normal, summer day.

The other option - if I needed more capacity after, say, adding a house air conditioning unit - would be to simply install another set of panels - maybe 14-16 or so - and a separate inverter - a 3.6 kW unit, perhaps:  This would still stay within the 20% rule for the new electrical panel and add a degree added redundancy.  Since the "hard" work (e.g. update of the electrical, etc.) has already been done, such an addition would be comparatively easy.

Comment:

As of the time of this writing (mid August, 2016) it would appear that the company that I used for the installation of my system (Auric Solar) will no longer consider the use of series-string photovoltaic systems, at least for residential customers - a statement based on a conversation a friend and fellow amateur radio operator had with a company representative.  The impression given - perhaps unintentionally - was that they had enough business that they didn't necessarily need to offer flexibility or other system options to their potential customers.

What this means is that for fellow amateur radio operators who wish to avoid an "RF noisy" installation, I've recently been suggesting another company.

Update - May, 2024:

It has been about eight years since the above system was installed and I have had ZERO maintenance issues during the entire time other than occasionally trimming back tree branches that block/hang over panels.

I have since had a Tesla Powerwall 2 installed as well as increased the solar production to 10 kW - again using a SunnyBoy series string inverter, still with no interference from my own solar and only very slight interference from the Powerwall 2 when it was running on some of the lower bands:  If you want more details on this and other solar-related topics at this blog, peruse the links below.

* * * * *

Other articles at this blog on related topics:

• It *IS* possible to have an RF-quiet home PV (solar) electric system - link
  
• The Solar Saga Part 1: Avoiding Interference - (Why I did not choose Microinverters) - link
  
• Does the Tesla Powerwall 2 produce Radio Frequency Interference? - link
• Reducing RFI from the Tesla Powerwall 2 - link 
• Tesla Powerwall susceptibility to RF Transmissions - and how to deal with it - link 

[End]

This page stolen from "ka7oei.blogspot.com".